Women in the Books of Samuel

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF THE ROLE OF THE MAJOR WOMEN CHARACTERS IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL by István Borzási Dissertation submitted to the Director of Biblical Studies, International Baptist Theological Seminary – Prague, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Theology in Biblical Studies Director: Dr. Cheryl Brown September, 2004. 1. Introduction From a biblical theological point of view the key aspect of the books of Samuel is how the earlier promises given to the patriarchs and to Israel are partially fulfilled in the reign of David. The reign of David is a turning point in the outworking of God's purposes of salvation. The narratives about David and about the major women characters in the Books of Samuel show that if the promise has a future, it is more a matter of God's grace than of human faithfulness. In the outworking of this grace and fulfilment of the promises, women characters in the Books of Samuel have a major contribution. The women characters in the Books of Samuel shaped the whole history of Israel in that time, influencing familial, social and political affairs, changing and determining the course of events. They deserve a higher consideration and a deeper appreciation, and this is the reason we turn our attention to them. 1.1. The Intention of this Work The intention of this work is to investigate the role of the major women characters in the Books of Samuel, to see how they influenced the life of Israel and its king. Moreover, understanding their life and character will contribute to the interpretation of the Books of Samuel: we will find out how these women affected the course of the history of Israel, the political acceptance of David as king, and the morality of the time. Biblical narratives generally are products of their time, and by nature are historiography, or at least semi-historical writings, of theological, ethical, social and national character, (giving to their writings a literary and aesthetic shaping, and using rhetorical devices).1 Some of the women in the Books of Samuel make use of lengthy speeches, which should be studied 1 New Criticism tended to dismiss both the work’s historical background and the biography of its authors, focusing upon the work in itself. New Historicism has returned to the belief that an author’s social, political, and historical background is of relevance in comprehending the world projected by a work. Consequently literary works (including biblical narratives) should be studied together with the historical backgrounds both of the time of composition, and of the period depicted. More about this issue see: Moshe Garsiel, The story of David and Bathsheba: a different approach, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 55/2, 1993, 248. 2 in their literary, persuasive, ethical, judicial and political aspects. The limitation in reported speeches is intentional, but the longer speeches have also well defined reasons. We are going to consider principally what the text say explicitly and unambiguously, in the light of these characteristics of biblical narrative. 1.2. The Characters of the Books of Samuel The Books of Samuel are an account of the history of Samuel, Saul and David. The different sections are delineated by summary statements as 1Sam 7:13-14, 2Sam 8:15-18 and 2Sam 20:23-26, which are deliberate structuring devices, ending a unit and bridging it to the following unit. The rise of the prophet Samuel and the partial restoration of Israel after the philistine defeat are recorded in 1Sam 1-7. Samuel’s important career is summarized in 1Sam 7:13-17, mentioning three times that Samuel “judged” (jp;v') Israel. This judging ministry was one of “reproof, instruction, and counsel for living under the Lord’s lordship”.2 The summary statement shows how important Samuel was: “he was really the shield of Israel... being far more responsible for the safety of Israel than was the soon-to-be desired king, Saul”.3 We are going to study from this section Hannah, the mother of Samuel, who became the dawning of a new era. The account about the struggle between Saul and David is a struggle between two dynasties (though Saul did not found a dynasty in a technical sense, he remained the only king in his genealogical line). Michal, the daughter of Saul who became the wife of David, was caught unwillingly in the middle of this struggle between Saul and David. We are going to study her character, and the subtle political manoeuvres related to her life. The history of the rule of David, together with the succession to his rule (2Sam 9-20. 1Kings 1-2), is a compact literary unit that covers David’s reign over Israel and Judah. The 2 Dale Ralph Davis, Looking on the Heart, vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1994. p. 78. 3 Ibid., 77. 3 interpretation of this section is dominated by the so-called “Throne Succession Narrative” theory. This theory was formulated first by Rost,4 who had his main method and goal to start from the narrative conclusion in 1Kings 1-2, and work “backward”5 from that point, to demonstrate that the goal of these narratives was the justification of Solomon being David’s successor. Rost tried to show that the earlier materials moved in this direction. Recently, however, the whole theory was questioned by several scholars, showing that there are considerably more themes present in this section than simply that of succession, and “some of them appear to be anti-Solomonic”.6 How could these materials be kept in a document, which aimed to justify Solomon’s accession to the throne? The normal answer is that 2Sam 9-20 cannot be called the Throne Succession Narrative, but is a more complex account of the rule of David over Judah and Israel. It is wiser, as many preferred to do, to call these narratives “Court History”. From this period we are going to study four women characters, two of David’s wives, Bathsheba and Abigail, and two other women who had a major influence on his rule: Tamar and the Tekoite woman. Bathsheba and Tamar are related in being sexually abused, and Abigail and the Tekoite woman are also related, being the wise women of the Books of Samuel, using lengthy speeches to convince David about certain matters. 4 Leonhard Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, Sheffield, Almond, 1982, (German original: Die Überliferung von der Tronnachfolge Davids, BWANT, III/6; Stuttgart: W Kohlhammer, 1926.) 5 For more on the method used by Rost see: Randall C. Bailey, David in Love and War, The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, no. 75. Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. p. 10. 6 Among those who consider this work as anti-Solomonic or Court History see: Peter Ackroyd, The Succession Narative (So Called), Interpretation 35, 1981, pp. 388ff; J. W. Flanagan, Court History or Succession Document: A Study of 2Sam 9-20 and 1Kings 1-2, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 72-81; Carole Fontaine, The bearing of wisdom on the shape of 2Samuel 11-12 and 1Kings 3, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 34, 1986, p. 61. 4 2. Hannah: A Mother for a Nation The story of Hannah, the first story in the books of Samuel, according to Fokkelman is set against the moral, spiritual and political chaos found in the last chapters of the book of Judges7. The plot of the chapter is a “course which leads from want to the lifting of that lack”8: the want stands for the barrenness of Hannah and the lifting of the lack stands for having her child she so intensely longed for. So, the narrative moves from problem to solution, from barrenness to worship. The climax of this narrative is at the end, where Hannah is ready to give up her only child to place him at God’s disposal in Shiloh. The subject of the narrative is a birth granted to a barren woman. The type scene, according to Robert Alter9, is an eminently matriarchal type-scene, a type-scene common to a birth narratives. The story seems to deal exclusively with Hannah’s barrenness, without explicit awareness of the larger public issues of political power, which covers the Books of Samuel. This is an “intimate tale of fragility, surprise, and fidelity”10. All the way through the Books of Samuel, most of the women characters are related in a way or other with children or childbirth. From the beginning Hannah is weeping before the Lord, asking for a child (1Sam 1:1-20). The wife of Pinchas (1Sam 4:19-22) is concerned, before she dies to name her child who is going to survive the many disasters and the death of his mother. The only word of Bathsheba in a long and fateful story is her message sent to David that she is pregnant. The most painful penalty for Michal was that she never had a child (1Sam 18:20. 1Sam 18:28. 2Sam 6:16-23). The Tekoite woman tries to persuade David to bring Absalom home, presenting him as the only heir, who being David’s son, should remain 7 J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. IV. Vow and Desire (1Sam 1-12), Van Gorcum 1993, Assen, The Netherlands, p. 1. 8 Ibid., p. 2. 9 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, Basic Books, 1981. p. 81-84. 5 alive even if he is guilty. Rizpa mourns with sackcloth many days, because her sons were killed (2Sam 21:10-11). Hannah is the major character of 1Sam 1, and everything revolves around her: her husband, the lovingly concerned Elkanah, her rival, the satiated and spiteful Peninnah, Eli, the heavy handed but kind-hearted priest, and finally her son Samuel, who from this point on is going to be the principal character. Let us consider the story of this heroine who reshaped Israel’s history. 2.1. The High Esteem of Motherhood In this introduction to the books of Samuel, it cannot escape our notice that motherhood receives a high consideration. The information about Elkanah having two wives, Hannah and Peninnah, one barren and one fertile, is analogous to earlier similar events, Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Leah, as Miscall and Alter noticed.11 Beside this, the family is just the opposite of the Leah-Rachel model, because there Leah was placed exactly opposite Rachel. Rachel was loved, and Leah “hated”; but here the barren Hannah is loved.12 Peninnah attained what was socially and psychologically speaking of cardinal importance for a married woman: she became a mother. However, Elkanah pays a special attention not to her, but to Hannah, at the sharing of the portions13, which must have been irritating for Peninnah: though bearing many children to Elkanah, cannot guarantee his love, and her longing to be loved is not satisfied. The longing to be loved is also present in Leah, where at giving birth to her first child, she Walter Brueggemann, A. I Samuel 1: a sense of a beginning, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 102/1, 1990, p. 34. 11 Peter D. Miscall, 1 Samuel, A Literary Reading, 1986, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, p. 1. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, Basic Books, 1981. p. 82. 10 12 The marriage of Elkanah, as usual for that time, “has been arranged by the family”, and was primarily a decision of family politics where “the presence or absence of love was simply irrelevant”. See: J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. IV. p. 22. 13 The textual interpretative problems concerning the portion(s) allotted to Hannah is discussed by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. I Samuel, The Anchor Bible Commentary, Doubleday, 1980. p. 51-52, where he concludes, that the narrative must report on a disproportionately generous share to Hannah, and so reads that Hannah’s portion was a “single portion equal to theirs”. This view though very suggestive, we consider not conclusive because it is hard to be harmonized with: bhea' hN"x-; ta, yKi „because Elkanah loved her”. 6 names him Reuben, saying: “surely my husband will love me now.” (Gen 30:32). It may be frustrating to Peninnah the love of her husband toward Hannah, but that is incomparable with the pain she is causing to Hannah with her provocative, vitriolic notices. She is Hannah’s Ht'r'c' “rival”, who torments her, Hm'x.r; d[;B. hw"hy> rg:s'-yKi “because the Lord had shut up her womb”. And this happened hn"v'b. hn"v' “year after year” (1Sam 1:6-7)! The response of Hannah was weeping, giving off tears, and being unable to take in food., at receiving her cultic portion of the sacrificial meal. Her heart remains “bad” (in terror and distress), and even not answering to the “why”-s of her husband, everybody knows why. Fokkelman captures the main thought: Hannah does not react to words with words. She does not act as if she were pitiable; she does not follow the painful line of assuring her husband that she really loves him very much, but… etc. She does not beg for understanding. Words are no longer necessary. Hannah presents a deed: she gets to her feet, in more than one sense.14 Hannah pours out her distress and bitterness in prayer before the Lord in Shiloh, and after this she is capable of eating, as a Hebrew song noticed: “Now you must eat and ready your body / for the want that began / as your hollowness and closure / to be hallowed, / consummated by the Lord in you.”15 2.2. The Characteristics of the Narrative We may notice first the frequently used numbers: the “law of twins”, as Schulz calls it,16 the two characters who are usually treated as a unit, and who are engaged in conversation from time to time: Peninnah and Hannah, Elkanah and Hannah, Eli and Hannah. But the law of three is also a characteristic of this story: three people go to Shiloh: Elkanah, Peninnah and Hannah. For the sacrificial meal a three-year-old bull is taken along, and the portions of the 14 Ibid., p. 31. 15 Rachel M. Srubas, Midrash for Hannah (After 1Sam 1:1-20), Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion no. 16/1, 2000, p. 87-90. 7 sacrifice are brought out with a three-pronged fork. Hannah later has three sons and two daughters (1Sam 2:21). Three times the Lord calls Samuel in vain. The narrative contains four scenes artistically arranged: a.) the assertion of barrenness (1Sam 1:3-8), b.) the enactment of lament and priestly response (1Sam 1:9-18), c.) the announcement of birth (1Sam 1:19-20) and d.) the enactment of thanksgiving (1Sam 1:2128a).17 The four scenes are arranged in such a way, that the assertion of birth is scene 3 corresponds with the assertion of barrenness in scene 1. The enactment of thanksgiving in scene 4 matches the enactment of complaint and petition in scene 2. These two pairs of scenes have as a conclusion v. 28b: “And they worshipped the Lord there”. This shows that the author wants us to see more in the narrative than the birth of a child: we should see the rule of the Lord, to whom laments are addressed and thanksgiving uttered. Hannah’s narrative becomes an intentional beginning point for the larger Samuel-Saul-David narrative. Hannah’s helplessness anticipates Israel’s royal narrative which also begins with helplessness. Brueggemann noticed that the narrative about Hanna’s barrenness is not simply an idyllic tale, but it is an expression of a “sense of beginning”, which starts the story of Israel’s rise to power (David’s monarchy) in a peculiar way.18 Samuel’s birth, and especially the Song of Hannah functions to introduce the larger canonical literature of Samuel, serving as a clef sign or interpretative key for all that follows. The Song of Hannah about powerful inversions caused by the Lord becomes “the perspective from which the rise of David is understood and narrated, for David is indeed one of the ‘needy’ who ‘sits with the princes’”.19 16 Alfonz Schulz. Narrative Art in the Book of Samuel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series no. 116, p.141. 17 About this structure of the narrative see: Walter Brueggemann, I Samuel 1: a sense of a beginning, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 102/1, 1990, p. 34-37. 18 Walter Brueggemann, I Samuel 1: a sense of a beginning, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 102/1, 1990, p. 43. 19 Walter Brueggemann, I Samuel 1: a sense of a beginning, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 102/1, 1990, p. 43. 8 Childs suggests that the Song of Hannah in 1Sam 2:1-10 has its counterpart in 2Sam 22:1-51.20 With these songs the story of Israel’s monarchy is bracketed and bounded by lyrical statements that make clear the decisive role of the Lord in the life of Israel. He suggests an intentional correspondence between the first narrative if 1Sam and the final narrative of 2Sam 24. In 1Sam we are witnesses of the transformation of Hannah, and in 2Sam 24 we may watch in a reverse order the transformation of David. Hannah is transformed from a voiceless, weeping, vexed woman into a powerful voice of history-making. In 2Sam 24 David is left with little royal power, no royal arrogance, only prayer, asking the Lord’s mercy. If 1Sam 1-2 has “a sense of beginning”, as Brueggemann called it,21 2Sam 23-24 has “a sense of ending”. Brueggemann also considers that “the canonical function of 1Sam 1-2 as an introduction to the larger narrative is parallel to the canonical function of Luke 1-2 as an introduction to the narrative of Luke-Acts”.22 The stories of Samuel are all the way long preoccupied with David. David, who is authorized and recognized as Israel’s legitimate king even by Saul. Behind Saul stands the authorizing power of Samuel. But from whence comes Samuel, the king maker and king breaker? To this question answers 1Sam 1-2: behind Samuel stands Hannah, with her distress, weeping, first, but later with her prayer, vow and worship. It is also clear, that behind all of them stands the Lord, who closes wombs, remembers and answers prayers. Mother Hannah becomes the mother of the entire narrative. “She sand Israel to power, and she sang David to the throne.”23 2.3. The Characteristics of the Narrative 20 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 1979, p. 272-273. 278. Walter Brueggemann, I Samuel 1: a sense of a beginning, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 102/1, 1990, p. 43. 22 Walter Brueggemann, I Samuel 1: a sense of a beginning, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 102/1, 1990, p. 44. 23 Walter Brueggemann, I Samuel 1: a sense of a beginning, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 102/1, 1990, p. 48. 21 9 3. Michal: Daughter of Saul or Wife of David? Michal’s portrayal if defined by her special status between the kings: she was the daughter of Saul who became the wife of David. She is introduced in 1Sam 18:20 as “the daughter of Saul” who loves David, called later in various narratives as “wife of David” (1Sam 19:11; 1Sam 25:44 2Sam 3:14), and named for the last time in 2Sam 6:16, 20-23 again as “the daughter of Saul” who despised David in her heart. So, Michal, as the circumstances vary, is either ‘daughter of Saul’ or ‘wife of David’. 3.1. The love of Michal Michal becomes David’s wife at the same time Saul starts his attempts to get rid of David. Michal loved David, and this was convenient to Saul, because this gave him an opportunity to set a trap for him. David expressed his concern that he has no wealth and his background is too humble to become the king’s son-in-law. Saul requires a bride price of one hundred Philistine foreskins. David kills twice more Philistines, and so, Michal becomes his wife (1Sam 18:20-29) and Saul becomes even more afraid of him. Michal saves David’s life by helping him to escape from Saul’s persecution, lowering him out of the window, and lies to Saul’s messengers. She does this out of pure love for David. This love and loyalty makes her to be like her brother Jonathan: both Michal and Jonathan are showing more love and loyalty to their father’s competitor than to their father. There is no doubt about Michal’s genuine love, but we do not know exactly how long lasting it was. When we meet her again in 2Sam 6, the exchange of words between Michal and David shows her hatred, which could have been born earlier and gradually increased over time. We will consider this hatred and its reason later. 10 In the beginning, David did not behave dishonourably toward Michal, but being a possible successor to the throne, Saul deprived him of his wife, and gave her to Paltiel. Saul giving Michal to Paltiel has the effect of distancing David from any immediate connection to her. Becomes more and more clear, that Saul and David belong to different spheres, and Michal, at this time probably against her will, was forced to remain at Saul’s sphere, “a sphere to which David can no longer return, and from which he can not extricate his wife”.24 Only after the death of Saul the balance of power shifted sufficiently toward David that he could permit to demand the return of Michal. 3.2. The marriage of Michal with David The “History of David’s Rise” begins with marrying Michal. All of David marriages contributed slowly but surely to prepare or strengthen his claim for the throne. David’s reign in Hebron lasted seven and a half years (2Sam 2:10-11), while Ishboshet reigned only for two years at Mahanaim. This means that Saul was still living when David married Ahinoam (the former wife of Saul), and with this he made a claim for the throne.25 However, we do not know for sure if this is so. From Michal’s point of view this is very important, because the first mention of Ahinoam as David’s wife is related with Michal: “David also married Ahinoam of Jezreel, and they both (i.e. Abigail and Ahinoam) were his wives. But Saul had given his daughter Michal, David’s wife to Paltiel son of Laish, who was from Gallim.” (1Sam 25:43-44). Levenson suggests that these verses are connected by more than similarity in subject matter, because this is suggesting that Saul deprived David of Michal at the time when David asserted his right to the throne through his marriage with 24 John Kessler, Sexuality and politics: the motif of the displaced husband in the Books of Samuel, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 62/3, 2000, 415. 25 A possible more detailed explanation of this theory may be found in: Jon D. Levenson, 1 Samuel 25 as literature and as history, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 40, 1978, 27. and: D. N. Freedman, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry”, Unity and Diversity, eds. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts, Baltimore, 1975, 16. 11 Ahinoam.26 If so, the narratives of Ahinoam and Abigail mask a political struggle which had great consequences for the whole country. The marriage with Michal had also great political consequences. At the beginning it was only a romance: Michal loved genuinely David, the handsome warrior. But later she was caught into those political manoeuvres which were associated with David’s claim to the throne. These political manoeuvres destroyed her life. 3.3. The relationship of David to Michal We never read that Michal’s love was reciprocated by David. At the time when David demands that Abner should arrange Michal’s return to him, as a test of Abner’s good faith, Michal’s return has clearly a political dimension. “David asserts his authority by denying to Saul the right to appropriate Michal to another.”27 We read: yKi yn:P'-ta, ha,r>ti-al{ rmoale ^T.aime laevo ykinOa' dx'a, rb"D' %a: yn"P-' ta, tAar>li ^a]boB. lWav'-tB; lk;ymi tae ^a]ybih/ ynEp.l-i ~ai But one thing I require of you: you shall not see my face unless you first bring Michal, Saul's daughter, when you come to see my face (2Sam 3:1213). This shows that Michal is exchanged as a piece of property, taken from David, given to Paltiel, than brought back to David by force. Nobody enquired about her options in the matter. The text does not affirms explicitly neither Saul’s right to give Michal to Paltiel nor David’s right to demand her back: the issue is not the legality of David’s demand but its ethical dimension. Earlier, the narrator’s subtle criticism described the changed situation in David’s family, when he speaks about David going up to Hebron with ylim.r>K;h; lb'n" tv,ae lyIg:ybia]w: tyli[re >z>YIh; ~[;nOyxia] wyv'n" yTev. “his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the widow of Nabal the Carmelite” (2Sam 2:2). David has now a more extended household 26 Jon D. Levenson, 1 Samuel 25 as literature and as history, 27. 12 than he had before. At the time when he married Michal, David had no other wife; but now, at his demand for Michal (2Sam 3:12-16), he is married to Ahinoam and Abigail, and has four more additional wives: ~[;nOyxia]l; !Anm.a; ArAkb. yhiy>w: !Arb.x,B. ~ynIB' dwId'l. ÎWdl.W"YIw:Ð ¿Wdl.YEw:À lb'n" tv,ae ÎlyIg:¨ybia]l;Ð ¿lgEybia]l;À ba'l.ki WhnEv.miW `tlia[er>z>YIh; `rWvG> %l,m, ym;l.T;-tB; hk'[]m;-!B, ~Alv'ba. ; ‘yviliV.h;w> ylimr. >K;h; yViVih;w> `lj'ybia-] !b, hy"j.p;v. yviymixh] ;w> tyGIx;-!b, hY"nIdoa] y[iybir>h'w> `!Arb.x,B. dwId'l. WdL.yU hL,ae dwID' tv,ae hl'g>[l, . ~['r>t.yI Sons were born to David in Hebron: His firstborn was Amnon by Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; his second, Chileab, by Abigail the widow of Nabal the Carmelite; the third, Absalom the son of Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur; the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; and the sixth, Ithream, by David’s wife Eglah. These were born to David in Hebron (2Sam 3:2-5). David, who is going to deprive Paltiel of his one cherished wife, has already six other women! Beginning with this, the “cards” regarding Michal are known: David has nothing to do with Michal as a person, she has only political significance for him. It is interesting to note, that while David calls her as yTiv.ai “my wife” (2Sam 3:14), the narrator identifies Paltiel as her vyai “husband” (2Sam 3:16). Michal’s loyalty to David was genuine, but she felt betrayed by him, and all she wanted now was nothing more than having a peaceful life and staying away from all political ambitions. Kessler observes that she is treated and commanded as one might command a dog: Abner’s harsh dismiss of Paltiel with a double imperative, bWvß %lE “go back” or “get up, return” is similar to Amnon’s dismiss of Tamar in 2Sam 13:15b, ykile ymiWq “get up, go away”.28 If the deeply attached, faithful Paltiel is now so brutally humiliated, Michal’s feelings could not have been much different, and this will soon come to the surface. 27 John Kessler, Sexuality and politics, 415. 28 John Kessler, Sexuality and politics, 417. 13 3.4. The hatred of Michal After bringing the ark to Jerusalem with much joy and great ceremony, David returns to his house, AtyBe-ta, %rEb'l. “to bless his household”. But his action had a diametrically opposite effect upon Michal. She bursts out ironically as she sees David: laer'f.yI dB;kN. -I hm; %l,m, ~AYh; “How glorious was the king of Israel today”, and compares him to ~yqI)reh' “the foolish ones”, “the worthless fellows” (2Sam 6:20). She enters the picture as an unhappy spectator, she !ALx;h; d[;B. hp'q.v.nI “looked through a window”, and sees David celebrating the inauguration of the city of David, with bringing the ark of the Lord there, and HB'liB. zb,Tiw: Al “she despised him in her heart” (2Sam 6:16). At her rebuke David answers: dygI±n" ytiîao tWO“cl; . AtêyBe-lK'miW ‘%ybiam' (e yBiÛ-rx;B'( rv,’a] hw"©hy> ynEåp.li hw")hy> ynEïp.li yTiÞq.xf; iw> laer_ 'f.yI-l[; hw"hß y> ~[;î-l[; It was before The Lord, who chose me instead of your father and all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel. Therefore I will celebrate before the Lord. (2Sam 6:21) The narrator is telling us what Michal is feeling, but not telling us, why. Is she angry, because of the undignified public show which David performs before the crowd, with this humiliating Michal also? Or, is she angry because of her jealousy over David’s glory, while she is absent and neglected? Or is she angry because of being torn away from her loving and devoted husband, Paltiel? Or, her hatred is attributable to David’s dynastic ambitions – now clearly revealed in his establishing the ark in the ‘city of David’ – which will irrevocably displace the house of Saul, as Alter also considers.29 In this case Michal’s despise is not because of her lack of veneration of the ark. The alienation between David and Michal had a 29 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, Basic Books, 1981. 123. 14 weightier cause: she protests in this way against being used in spite of her unwillingness, to legitimate David’s right to the throne. The account of the same event in 1Chron omits the passage with Michal, but the narrator’s attitude is the same, as we see in commencing the account with David’s words, to bring the ark to Jerusalem, lWav' ymeyBi WhnUvr. ;d> al{-yKi “for we neglected it in the days of Saul” (1Chron 13:3). The ark now is not neglected; David brings it to Jerusalem. But lWav'- tB lk;Ûymi “Michal, the daughter of Saul” is rebuking laer'f.yI %l,m,ä tAlg>nI tAlG"hiK. wyd'b'[] tAhm.a; ynEy[el. “the king of Israel” for “exposing himself in the sight of the servants’ slavegirls”. It is obvious that Michal’s words have behind them a political motivation: David’s dancing is connected with the ark’s entrance into Jerusalem, a symbol that the house of Saul will have no part in the future kingdom, (in the “city of David”). Kingly legitimacy no longer resides with the house of Saul, and with letting to bring His ark into the city of David, God exalts the new king. From David’s answer we understand that David is utterly the Lord’s man> a fact Michal either cannot understand or refuses to acknowledge. Brueggeman emphasises this point: The rhetoric of David’s response (vv. 22-23) evidences complete reliance on The Lord and, at the same time a disdainful dismissal of Michal and an end to any reliance on Saulide legitimacy. The rhetoric thus succeeds in driving an irreversible wedge between The Lord (and David) and the Saulide patrimony now expressed by Michal.30 So, Michal has no right to rebuke David. She has no future in this new order, no claim on Israel. God legitimised David by letting him bring His ark into Jerusalem. David speaks with authority, and Michal is dismissed and hopeless. This is not only a private, familial matter, an estrangement between husband and wife, but a political matter, a break between king and queen, between the House of David and the House of Saul. 15 3.5. The barrenness of Michal The episode of Michal in 2Sam 6:23 concludes with a statement about her barrenness. Barrenness was the greatest misfortune, a constant disappointment in an Israelite woman’s life. The barrenness of Michal, mentioned as an epilogue to the confrontation, may be a sign of God’s rejection. The statement may bear the meaning that after this furious exchange David ceased to have conjugal relations with Michal, condemning her to barrenness. However, Alter points out that “we cannot be entirely certain that Michal’s childlessness is not a bitter coincidence, the last painful twist of a wronged woman’s fate”.31 Michal is as much related with her father’s history as with David’s. Saul’s spiritual insensitivity affected Michal as well. But while in Saul this insensitivity burst out in an inner conflict, which led him to “pathological forms of mistrust, hypochondria and persecution mania”,32 in the case of Michal, this changed a fervent love into a hatred of the same intensity. Saul rebelled against the Lord by refusing to know who his successor was, and Michal’s rebellion is also another manifestation of the same “refusal to know”, as Jobling calls it.33This rebellion against the Lord’s anointed, turned out as a judgment against her own life. 30 Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, John Knox Press, Luisville, Kentucky, 1990. 252. 31 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, Basic Books, 1981. 125. 32 David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, nr. 14, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1980. 121. 33 Jobling, David. Jonathan: A Structural Study in I Samuel, JSOTSupp 7, Sheffield, JSOT press, 1978. 16 4. Bathsheba and Tamar: The Sexually Abused Women Two of the women characters in 2Samuel, Bathsheba (2Sam 11:1-27) and Tamar (2Sam 13:6-22), are subjects of sexual abuse. The female characters in none of the cases are condemned, but their male partners are, and severely suffer the consequences of their sins. We are going to look at Bathsheba first, and then of Tamar. 4.1. Bathsheba The general context or background of the story of Bathesheba is the Ammonite war, which holds 2Sam 10-12 together, and is linked with ch. 9 as well. In ch. 9 David practices covenant loyalty, ds,x, ”faithful love” with his internal enemies (Mephibosheth), in ch. 10 he practices loyalty internationally (Hanun, descendant of Nahash), while in ch. 11 he throws kindness and loyalty to the wind. After being presented as a man controlled by his covenants and his promises, he is pictured from the other side, as one who is driven by his glands and his secrets. In chapters 9-10 he spares and mourns life; in chapter 11 he tramples on and destroys life. With a closer look to the story of David, we observe that the reader receives information gradually as the text proceeds. On this basis Perry and Sternberg justified the possibility of the study of 2Sam 11 in isolation from 2Sam 12.34 However, Bathsheba’s story in ch. 11 cannot be isolated completely and artificially from its context, since the chapter’s meaning is also determined by its link with Natan’s rebuke in ch. 12. 2Sam 11 is only half of the story, the second half is in chapter 12. Not only this, but as we have seen earlier, there is even a larger context which must be considered to perceive ch. 11 correctly. 34 M. Perry, M Sternberg, “Caution: a Literary Text!” Problems in the Poetics and the Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Hasifrut 2, 1970, (Hebrew), 608-663., English summary: XV-XVIII. 17 Bathsheba is most of the time behind the curtains in both chapters; and there is nothing made known about her attitude, emotions or will. There is no direct report given by the narrator, about her attitudes. Most scholars regard her as a minor figure, an “agent”,35 who belongs to the scenery, an object to satisfy David’s lust. 4.1.1. The background of the narrative In the context of the Ammonite war, the chapter begins with a reference to the king’s (or messenger’s) going out to war, and David staying in Jerusalem. Garsiel with a lengthy analysis argues that there was not a fixed time when kings went out to war.36 But the two notations of time: hn"V'h; tb;Wvt.li “at the return of the year”, and ~ykial.M;h; tace t[el. “at the time when messengers / kings go out”, may not refer to kings going out but to the return of the messengers (as the MT renders), sent to express condolences to the new Ammonite king, Hanun (2Sam 10:2). So, its meaning may be that a year had expired since David sent his messengers to Hanun. In the context of what follows, there is a feeling, that here is an ironic attack on king David, as Garsiel regarded:37 Whatever means “at the return of the year” (2Sam 11:1), we understand that he should be at this time with his soldiers, and not walking on the roof of his palace…38 4.1.2. The literary features of the narrative Studying the literary features of the narrative, we may observe that the narrative is covered all over with irony: observance of the ceremonial law (v. 4c) connected with the blatant transgression of the moral law (v. 4b); Uriah is disobedient to the king’s order (v. 8-9), 35 See: Simon, Uriel. Poor man's ewe-lamb, Biblica no. 48/2, 1967, 207-242. A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature Series 9; Sheffield: Almond, 1983) 26-27. 36 Moshe Garsiel, The story of David and Bathsheba, 251. 37 Moshe Garsiel, The story of David and Bathsheba: A different approach, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, April 1993, Vol. 55, Issue 2, 249. 38 We may agree with Garsiel, that irony is not necessarily an intended effect of the mode of writing. His argumentation, however, that there is not enough evidence from that era that kings should participate personally in every battle is not relevant here. David’s sin being introduces with these notations of time gives 18 but his extreme faithfulness to the king explains such a disobedience (v. 11); David is asking and speaking about peace (shalom – peace, welfare, well-being, v. 7), and yet doing everything to take the shalom from Uriah and his marriage; and finally there is a remark, that David’s policy was to not risk the life of even one man (v. 20), yet, he welcomes the news about the death of a few, if Uriah was among those who died (v. 25). The focus is continually on David: David and Bathsheba (vv. 2-5), David and Uriah (vv. 6-13), David and Joab (vv. 14-25), David and The Lord (v. 27), David and Nathan (2Sam 12:1-12). A good number of verbs: “and he saw… sent… inquired… sent… took her… lay with her…” indicates that the main initiative belonged to David. Brueggemann captures the idea: The action is quick. The verbs rush as the passion of David rushed. He sent; he took; he lay (v. 4). The royal deed of self-indulgence does not take very long. There is no adornment to the action. The woman then gets some verbs: she returned, she conceived. The action is so stark. There is nothing but action. There is no conversation. There is no hint of caring, of affection, of love – only lust. David does not call her by name, does not even speak to her. At the end of the encounter she is only ‘the woman’ (v. 5). The verb that finally counts is ‘conceived’. But the telling verb is ‘he took her’.39 We are told, that Bathsheba “came to him”, as a fact of obedience to the king, but surely not knowing yet why is she called to the palace. Immediately after the adultery “she returned to her house”, without having a description of her reactions. She was caught tragically and involuntarily in a sorrowful series of events. 4.1.3. The innocence of Bathsheba The question is, if her arousing of David was deliberate? Nicol in his positive answer relies on identifying five examples of ambiguity in the narrative: 1) whether or not Bathsheba hoped to be seen by David as she bathed; 2) whether or not David used force in causing Bathsheba to be brought to him; 3) whether or not it would have been clear to an onlooker from Bathsheba’s the impression that this information has something to do with what happened after. See: Moshe Garsiel, The story of David and Bathsheba, 250. 39 Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 273. 19 action in bathing that she was at the time purifying herself following menstruation; 4) whether or not the bathing drew Bathsheba to the attention of some third party who also witnessed the scene; and 5) whether or not Bathsheba had informed David that she was likely to be fertile at the time of adultery.40 Surely, the ambiguities are there, and someone may be tempted to ascribe a special weight to what the text does not say, or to what it may hint at; but we should consider principally what it does say, explicitly and unambiguously. From what the text says, Bathsheba is innocent. Let us consider the reasons. She bathes in the evening, at a certain distance from the house of David (while David is on the roof), known by the people as a married woman. This situation is not an ideal way to offer David glimpses of her. Simon correctly note that this “can accordingly afford no basis for assuming that she deliberately exposed herself”.41 She was not aware of the fact that David was watching her.42 To make a hypothesis that she planned the entire affair from the beginning to the end implies a woman full of cunning, which does not fit into the overall picture we have about Bathsheba. It makes no sense either, to consider that the affair begins accidentally, and Bathsheba is an opportunist, who secretly delights in the developments. If this had been true, Bathsheba has kept some resentment against the prophet, who made the whole affair known. But she remains in a good relationship with Natan, who though does not condemn her, rebukes David, and announces that the first child by Bathsheba will die. The fact that Natan reveals and condemns only David’s sin, shows clearly that only David is guilty, and Bathsheba is innocent. The story starts with some notes on the circumstances: it happened br,[,h' evening time”, when AbK'v.mi t[el. “at l[;me dwID' “David arose from his bed”, %l,M,h;-tyBe gG:-l[; 40 George G. Nicol, The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 73, 1997, 51. 41 Uriel Simon. Poor man's ewe-lamb, Biblica no. 48/2, 1967, 207-242. 42 J. Gutmann in “The Ewe-lamb”, Beth Mikva, No. 18/19, 1964, 7. comprises Bathsheba with the apocryphal Susanna, who took such great pains to ensure that no man saw her bathing, concluding that Bathsheba was not 20 %Leh;t.YwI : “and was walking about on the roof of the king's house”, and by mere chance gG"h; l[;me “from the roof”, tc,xr , o hV'ai ar.Y:w: time, but David could observe that daom. “he saw a woman bathing”. It was at evening ha,r>m; tb;Aj hV'ahi ' “the woman was exceedingly beautiful in appearance”. With these the narrator implies with regard to time, place and situation that this happened only as a result of a particular combination of circumstances, and it was not a trap. These particular coincidences described in detail by the narrator enable us to see Bathsheba as “a tragic figure,”43 involved without complicity in adultery and murder, and forced to marry in haste to escape the consequences. 4.1.4. The timing of the adultery The consciousness that Bathsheba was a married woman it seems did not deter David once his passion was stirred. Before she was sent home, the narrator makes clear a further detail, as he mentions David’s sin: Ht'am ' J. umi tv,D,q;tm. i ayhiw> HM'[i bK;v.YIw: “he lay with her as she purified herself from her uncleanliness”. This information is given to indicate that she conceived then, that being the most favorable time for it to take place, thus it was impossible to accuse Uriah with the paternity of the child. Bathsheba clearly was not pregnant when she came to David, since she has just been “purified from her uncleanliness”. Gesenius notes, that this is a circumstantial clause: “she was then in the situation of being purified from her uncleanliness”.44 There is no ground for the explanation of Keil-Delitsch45 that Bathsheba strictly observed the ordinance in Lev 15:18 to purify herself from the defilement of the seed of copulation before she returned home, not to the approach of Rashi and Kimhi according to innocent. His presupposition finds no expression in the text, which says: “But the thing that David has done displeased the Lord” (2Sam 11:28). So, David only is condemned; Bathsheba is not. 43 Moshe Garsiel, The story of David and Bathsheba, 248. 44 Gesenius-Krautsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1910, §141e, where our verse is cited along with Jgs 13:9, 2Sam 4:7. 45 Keil, C. E. and Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, Vol. III. I & II Samuel, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976. 21 which the text “wishes to clear David of suspicion of having committed a further offence: that he did not violate the prohibition of cohabiting with a menstruant woman”.46 The emphasis is not on exculpating David of something, but the opposite. Gutmann47 also wrongly adds a further iniquity to David’s adultery, that of cohabiting with her during her menstrual period, since it is clearly stated, that it happened “after she purified herself from her uncleanliness”. The statement in 2Sam 11:2 that David sees a woman bathing makes clear that he focuses upon her nakedness and not upon her motive for washing. But this later reason bears as much weight in the narrative as David’s lustful look. With the note about Bathsheba’s purification the narrator “is ruling out any possibility of doubt regarding the royal paternity of the child”.48 Bathsheba knows who is the father, and is sending word to David, announcing her pregnancy. David also knows, and realises that now it is his duty to do something. Since David’s feelings for Bathsheba had been only momentary, he might not consider marriage to Bathsheba at this point: he wanted just to get rid off the results of his guilt. But instead, David is increasing his guilt by trying to hide the facts: Uriah is summoned, and sent to his house to ^yl,g>r; #x;r> “wash his feet” (2Sam 11:8), which is likely a euphemism to have sexual intercourse.49 But Uriah “is not ready to do legitimately what the king has done criminally”.50 Increasing his guilt even more, David decides to get rid of Uriah !AM[; br,x,B. ynEB. “by the sword of the sons of Ammon” (2Sam 12:9), sending with him a letter to Joab, which contained the order of his liquidation.51 46 Uriel Simon. Poor man's ewe-lamb, Biblica no. 48/2, 1967, 213. 47 J. Gutmann, “The Ewe-lamb”,.7. cited by Uriel Simon. Poor man's ewe-lamb, 213. 48 Uriel Simon. Poor man's ewe-lamb, 213. 49 Uriel Simon, quoting Abravanel, in Poor man's ewe-lamb, 214. 50 Uriel Simon. Poor man's ewe-lamb, 214. 51 In the light of the narrator’s silence on this matter, we may regard Uriah as ignorant of the true situation. This is supported by the fact that Uriah gave the letter to Joab, did not look at it, nor read it. 22 During the story the narrator repeatedly contrasts the king with his victim, evidencing the innocence of Uriah and highlighting the guilt of David. Uriah is everything, David is not – and should have been. More so, he is not even an Israelite! 4.1.5. The judgements declared As we mentioned earlier, the second half of the story is in chapter 12, where the consequences of David’s sin are announced. To a certain extent we have to deal with this, since this affects Bathsheba and her child, as well. Three specific judgements are announced by Nathan: 1). The sword will not depart from David’s house forever (v. 10a); 2). The Lord will take his wives before his eyes and will give them to his neighbor, who will lie with them in broad daylight (v. 11); and 3). The son born to Bathsheba from David will surely die (v. 14b). Each of these judgements is tied to a specific reason: 1). because David despised the Lord and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be his wife (v. 10b); 2). because he did this in secret (v. 12a); and 3). because he disdained the Lord in this matter. Noll points out that the second sin of David, the murder of Uriah, is twice highlighted in the rhetoric of the three announcements of punishment in v. 9, but not specifically addressed until David’s outburst in v. 13a.52 Nathan’s response that “The Lord has taken away your sin, you are not going to die” (2Sam 12:13b), may mean that the Lord will not kill David for his rape of Bathsheba; that sin will be atoned by the announced punishment to be inflicted against his family. Nevertheless, because David murdered Uriah, this other matter (sp,a, “but, 52 K. L. Noll, The Faces of David, Journal for the Study of The Old Testament, Supplement Series 242, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997, 67. 23 however” - 2Sam 12:14), will bring the death of the first-born child.53 There is an imminent punishment for murder, and there are later punishments for rape and hypocrisy. 4.1.6. Summary David at last gets Bathsheba as his wife, but the event will remain always as a black spot in his history.54 4.2. Tamar The story of Tamar, the other sexually abused woman in the Books of Samuel is among the most shocking stories in the Bible. It tells of her rape by her half-brother, Amnon, the consequence of which culminates in the assassination of Amnon by Absalom, Tamar’s brother. For most people today, the deeper significance of these events may be missing, because sexual abuse and violent crime are too familiar to our society. The deeper significance is that these events are direct or indirect consequences of David’s sin: his children are reaping in a way what he was sowing. “The fathers ate sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Jer 31:28-29 and Ezek 18:2). We must be aware of the fact that all these are the Lord’s doom upon David. In this respect our compassion for Tamar is truly justified: she did not eat the sour grapes. The relationship of this story with the story of Bathsheba and David is not only thematic (that in many respects the children of David are re-enacting their father’s crime), but also historical: this being a direct consequence of David’s sin. Beside some other tentative views,55 the true social and religious questions what the rape of Tamar is raising are those formulated by Propp: 53 As David decreed in his outburst at Nathan’s story that “the man who did this has to pay four times over” (2Sam 12:5), for the death of Uriah, he pays with four of his sons: the one born to Bathsheba and Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah. 54 Bathsheba is mentioned as yTixih; hY"rIWa tv,ae “the wife of Uriah the Hittite” until the illegitimate child dies. Then hV'ail. Al-yhiTw. : “she became his [i.e.David’s] wife”. This shift in naming Bathsheba portrays her as a suffering subject, who is – as Michal was – exchanged as a piece of property. 24 The narrative poses a series of kinship puzzles. What is a family’s proper response to rape? What if the rapist is a family member? Is a union of half siblings legal? What is the due punishment for incest? What is the penalty for fratricide? When a potential  is himself a killer, must another  serve as executioner? Almost sadistically the narrator snares David in a web of ambiguity and paradox entailing the ruin of three of his children.56 4.2.1. The rape and “divorce” of Tamar Amnon’s love for his half-sister is aided by Jonadab, his friend who was dao)m. vyai ~k'x' “a very shrewd man” (2Sam 13:3); by a ruse he brought Tamar into Amnon’s chamber. Although Amnon’s invitation to sexual intimacy is considered by Tamar hl'b'N>h; “a disgraceful folly”, “a sacrilege” (2Sam 13:12), he Hl'AqB. [;mov.li hb'a' al{ Ht'ao bK;v.YIw: h'N<[y; >w: hN"M,mi qz:x/Y<w: “refused to listen to her voice; since he was stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her” (2Sam 13:14). Gray thinks that the motive which led Amnon and Absalom to their deeds was their dynastic ambition, and the text speaks about “the struggle for power within David’s royal family”.57 But Shimon Bar Efrat, in the other hand, concludes that the motive which led Absalom to murder Amnon, was not political but familial affair: “It was not Absalom's desire to get rid of his older brother as rival for the succession, but Absalom's hatred for Amnon ‘because he had forced his sister Tamar’”.58 55 Gray argues that the story of the rape of Tamar “for all the undeniable parallels… is distinct from David’s encounter with Bathsheba”. He suggests that this text begins to prefigure God’s abandonment of Israel in the Babylonian exile, because “how Amnon treats Tamar parallels a microcosm how Israel will come to treat the poor when the monarchy is fully established in power”. He considers that “as Tamar’s honour is dependant on the behaviour of Amnon, so The Lord’s is dependent on the behaviour of Israel”. We should consider this view as an extreme spiritualization, because this story cannot be stretched so far. See: Mark Gray, Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13.7-15: The Rape of Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 77, 1998, 40-54. 56 William H. Propp, Kinship in 2 Samuel 13 [problems presented to David by Tamar-Amnon incident], Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 55, 1993, 40. 57 Mark Gray, Amnon, 41. 58 Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, no. 70, Bible and Literature Series 17, Sheffield Academic Press, Second Edition, 1984. 274. 25 The crime of Amnon was rape. From a biblical perspective, this was more “akin to theft of property than to theft of persons”.59 Kidnapping and selling somebody into slavery was a capital crime (Ex 21:16; Deut 24:7), but rape was a more minor offence if the woman was not betrothed or married. If she was betrothed or married, then both should be killed as adulterers, especially if she is suspected of complicity, more exactly if she was raped within the city, where she could scream for help (Deut 22:23-24).60 But Amnon increased his guilt by dismissing Tamar after raping her, which violated the moral principle of Deut 22:28-29. The verb ynIxL e .v;l. and an"-Wxl.vi “send away” (2Sam 13:16 and 17) in this case probably refers to divorce.61 Tamar’s own words, ynIxL e .v;l. t'yfi['-rv,a] tr,x,a;me taZOh; hl'AdG>h; h['r'h' yMi[i “…this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other which you did to me” (2Sam 13:16), shows the measure of the guilt. Sending her away is the greater offence, because according to Deut 22:28-29 the rapist may escape the penalty for his rape only if he marries the woman and pays the brideprice for her. After rape (and marriage), there is no possibility for divorce. If the father vetoes the marriage, then the rapist should pay him compensation for the devaluation of his daughter (Exod 22:17). In the light of these regulations, the ideal solution for Tamar and Amnon would be their marriage, which was Tamar’s choice before the rape: &'M,mi ynI[en"m.yI al{ “he will not withhold me from you” (2Sam 13:13), and after the rape: ynIxEL.v;l. … taZOh; hl'AdG>h; h['r'h' “his evil of sending me away is worse” (2Sam 13:16). But Amnon refused to listen (2Sam 13:16). And his father David keeps silent out of love for Amnon; his half-brother Absalom, keeps silent out of hatred for Amnon. The one 59 William H. Propp, Kinship in 2 Samuel 13, 41. 60 We find an analogy to Gen 34, where Simeon and Levi kill Dinah’s rapist and all the other men of Shechem, and reply to their father’s rebuke: “Does one treat our sister as a prostitute?” (Gen 34:31). From Jacob’s reaction we understand, that bloodshed was an improper remedy for rape. 26 who really suffers, is Tamar, who is going to live for the rest of her life alone and hm'mevo “desolate” (2Sam 13:20), as an outcast, forgotten woman. 4.2.2. The question of incest The question arises if sexual relationship between half-siblings is permissible, or is incestuous and forbidden? Biblical law and prophecy clearly ban half sibling unions,62 but Tamar is assuming that she will be allowed to wed her half brother (2Sam 13:13). Why? Propp mentions that this union would not lack advantages, “for Amnon, as David’s beloved firstborn son, is the heir apparent to the throne. Although the king in fact reserves the right to name his heir (1Kings 1:20)”.63 If David did not use his women to forge international alliances, than Tamar could attain queenship only by marrying her brother. Tamar could propose marriage with Amnon for any reason, but brother considered this not proper. Absalom’s recommendation for Tamar is this: “Has Amnon your brother been with you? If so, my sister, be still. He is your brother; do not set your mind upon this matter” (2Sam 13:20). Related with this, Propp asks: What has fraternity to do with silence? The most plausible interpretation is that the silence Absalom recommends is that Tamar refrain from demanding marriage, for ‘he is your brother’, i.e. because a union would be incestuous.64 If this is the case, Amnon is guilty not only of rape, but of incest as well. What is the reaction of David? All we hear about him is that he is angry and that he is silent (2Sam 13:21). This silence disapproves Tamar, who thought that David would not refuse her to be give her to Amnon. Now, when David has reasons even to force her upon him, David is inactive, angry and silent. 61 See: Carlson, R. A. David, the chosen King, 181. 62 See: Lev 18:9. 11; 20:17. Deut 27:22. Ez 22:11. 63 William H. Propp, Kinship in 2 Samuel 13, 45. 64 William H. Propp, Kinship in 2 Samuel 13, 45. 27 The two Tamars in the Hebrew Bible may have similarities but there is one great difference which worth to be noted. The Tamar of Gen 28 was able to redress her own grievance with delightful craft. In contrast, the Tamar of 2Sam 13 is reduced to being a hm'êmevoå “a desolate woman” (2Sam 13:20), who living in her brother’s house has no independent means to reclaim her worth. She must rely on her brother Absalom, and on his bloody desire for vengeance. 4.2.3. The question of Tamar’s innocence From Tamar’s side, we should examine whether she might be still considered guiltless? It is clear that (for one reason or another), she did not consider her marriage with Amnon an incestuous unity. The question of incest is not relevant in her case. In her tragic relation with Amnon she may be considered guiltless only if she was forced and thus cannot be accused of complicity. At first look we cannot be certain about this, for two reasons: 1). she was willing to wed Amnon; and 2). the servants were close (2Sam 13:17) and she could have screamed for help (cf. Deut 22:23-27). Since Tamar’s assurance was that half-sibling marriage was permissible, we can conclude that Amnon did not commit incest, and the problem could be solved by marrying Tamar (in spite that this is forbidden by both Priestly [Lev 18:9. 11] and Deuteronomic [Deut 27:22] law). So, David should have forced Amnon to marry Tamar, in this way solving the problem. Propp takes a different stand: “Probably his duty would have been to execute Amnon – and Tamar as well, since she did not object to marriage with her brother”.65 However, we find clear hints in the text about what kind of person Tamar was: she uses words to try to buy time and make Amnon see reason and come to his senses. The threefold negation al{ , la; , la; “Do not… do not,,, do not…” (2Sam 13:12) emphasises her clear 28 opposition to Amnon’s proposal. With a series of questions she makes a reference to her possible disgrace, ynIaw] : “What about me?”, and to Amnon’s clear foolishness, hT'a;w> “What about you?” (2Sam 13:13). The narrator’s intention to exculpate Tamar is seen also in the explanation, that Ht'ao bK;v.YIw: h'N[< ;y>w: hN"M,mi qz:x/Y<w: “since he was stronger than she, he raped her” (emphasis mine) (2Sam 13:14). Than she publicly announces her shame by symbolically ripping her special robe, worn by tl{WtB.h; %l,M,h;-tAnb. “the virgin daughters of the king” (2Sam 13:18), thereby showing her deep grief that her whole life was torn in pieces.  4.2.4. The question of bloodguilt The remaining question is related to the crime of slaying Amnon by Absalom: is this creating bloodguilt of eliminates it? Is it a murder or is it an execution? We looked at Amnon’s sin until now, as which created bloodguilt, whether the rape or the incest. But if Absalom’s homicide creates bloodguilt, than Amnon was innocent of capital offence. Reasoning backward, we understand from the Tekoite woman’s story, that she is asking pardon for her guilty son. Propp explains: If the woman of Tekoa is seeking amnesty for her son – i.e. for Absalom – she should present any exculpatory evidence, such as the guilt of the slain son. Her failure to do so is a tacit confession that the killer is a murderer. And she explicitly admits that bloodguilt has been incurred: ‘Let the sin be upon me and my father’s house; the king and his throne shall be clear’ (2Sam 14:9). The implication is that Absalom is a murderer; hence, Amnon bore no bloodguilt for his treatment of Tamar.66 Absalom’s excessive, lethal vengeance is murder. It was not an accidental homicide (Ex 21:13; Num 35:6-34; Deut 4:41-43; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20). But it was a calculated, well prepared act, as a result of his hatred: !Anm.a;-ta, 65 William H. Propp, Kinship in 2 Samuel 13, 53. 29 ~Alv'ba. ; anEf-' yKi “Absalom hated Amnon”, because Atxoa] rm'T' tae hN"[i “he had forced his sister Tamar” (2Sam 13:22). But rape does not always deserve capital punishment: the rapist should pay the compensation of the devaluation of Tamar (Ex 22:17), if he do not want to marry her. Absalom’s clear commandment to the servants to strike Amnon (2Sam 13:28) betray his murderer intentions which is crying for vengeance. David, in his former failure to act, now is facing another question: should he execute Absalom? The self evident answer is yes, but “David again makes the wrong choice. Just as he loved Amnon too much to force him to marry, so he loves Absalom too much to kill him”.67 4.2.5. Summary 66 William H. Propp, Kinship in 2 Samuel 13, 51. 67 William H. Propp, Kinship in 2 Samuel 13, 51. 30 5. Abigail and the Tekoite Woman: Wise Women Two major speeches in the Books of Samuel are spoken by wise women: Abigail (1Sam 25:24-31) and the Tekoite woman (2Sam 14:4-17). They both make a confession of guilt; and both intercede for a guilty party (Nabal and the fratricide son), trying to get mercy from David. Their speeches are very persuasive, and at the end the women are able to convince David to do what they want. In this chapter we are going to examine these two women characters and their convincing speeches. They both relate to David as to the Anointed of the Lord, and they mention the Lord’s name several times in their speeches. Abigail reminds David of God’s promises, and her speech based on the general promises of the Lord becomes equivalent with a prophesy. She considers the meeting with David the providence of God, and urges him respectfully, to not take vengeance upon his foolish enemy, Nabal, but let God do this work, because it belongs to Him.66 5.1. Abigail, the wise wife of a churl (1Sam 25) The story of Abigail is placed after David had been anointed as king by Samuel (1Sam 16:1-3), so from the narrator’s point of view he is already a “king-in-waiting”.68 This is important, because it influences the understanding of Nabal’s and Abigail’s treatment of David: they are dealing with the anointed of the Lord. 5.1.1. Abigail in contrast with Nabal Abigail’s characterization is presented in contrast with her husband, Nabal, who is presented as worthy of his name69, a vicious, materialistic, egocentric, “worthless fellow” (1Sam 25:25). Because of this deliberate, overt characterization of the narrator, we know from 68 George G. Nicol, David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah: Transformations within a Triangle, Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament, no. 12/1, 1998, 131. 31 the start, who Nabal is: a Calebite, a dog-like man,70 hv,q' vyaih' “a harsh man” and ~ylil'[]m; [r; “evil in his doings” (1Sam 25:3), l[;Y:liB.h; “a good for nothing” “a man of Belial” (1Sam 25:25), who is indulging himself in lavish banquet in which he becomes so drunk that he is unapproachable till the next morning (1Sam 25:36-37). He is introduced in terms of his possessions71 and his autocratic arrogance over his servants. The sharp contrasts between Nabal and Abigail are open hints, that they “are irremediably mismatched”.72 Abigail is lk,f,-tb;Aj “of good understanding” and ra;To tp;ywI “beautiful in appearance”. Her “good understanding” is evidenced by her activity in the narrative and highlights her function as a wisdom figure. Her wisdom is revealed especially in her skilful use of words in her pathetic and convincing speech to David. Abigail’s actions are sharply contrasted with Nabal’s actions. While Nabal’s nondiplomatic reply to David’s men is a real insult, Abigail’s speech is a remedy of the abuse. Nabal is fool – churlish, surly and mean – who provoked David’s anger, but Abigail uses her wisdom and rhetoric, and softens David’s heart. Nabal is really a “spiritual, moral and social disaster”.73 We do not need to consider this an exaggeration: Nabal’s servants (1Sam 25:17), his enemy (v. 21), and his wife (v. 25) all agree in this matter; and Nabal’s own words (vv. 10-11) vindicate the writer’s assessment. The contrast is greater when his wife is described in the same breath as having ra;To tp;ywI lk,f,-tb;Aj “good sense and beautiful appearance” (v. 3b). 69 Levenson considers that his real name was changed for purposes of characterization. See: Levenson, Jon D. 1 Samuel 25 as literature and as history, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 40, 1978, 14. 70 The word  in the  appears to mean either “Calebite” or “dog-like” (cf. LXX, athropos kunikos) Brueggemann observes that „The way of introducing Nabal is precisely on target, because Nabal’s possessions precede his own person. His life is determined by his property. Nabal lives to defend his property, and he dies in an orgy, enjoying his property. Only after being told of his riches are we told his name (v. 3a)” Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, John Knox Press, Luisville, Kentucky, 1990. 175. 72 Jon D. Levenson, 1 Samuel 25 as literature and as history, 16. 71 32 Before examining Abigail’s speech, we need to have a look on Nabal’s insult. It has three parts: 1) a double rhetorical question which derides David by suggesting that he is rootless and his family is unknown (1Sam 25:10a); 2) a declarative statement which regards David as a rebel, a run-away slave (1Sam 25:10b); 3) a further rhetorical question which suggests the foolishness of giving provisions intended for Nabal’s servants to persons from places unknown (1Sam 25:11b). All these questions touched David’s pride and excited his anger. He was ready to go to take vengeance upon Nabal, by showing him, who he really is. David’s wrath was not right before God, because it was a sudden burst of a sinful passion, and not becoming to a servant of God. The remedy for this insult is Abigail’s argument, which is a rhetorical masterpiece. Generally, in her speech Abigail “moves from vengeance to promise, from Nabal (v. 25) to David’s secure house (v. 28), from the momentary to the eternal”.74 She disarms David by taking full blame for Nabal’s irresponsibility, interceding in behalf of her husband. She assures David that the vengeance of the Lord will visit Nabal if David will restrain himself from usurping the divine prerogative. She offers the goods she brought as a token of her confidence in the rightness of David’s cause. In her wisdom Abigail does three things: 1). as mediator between David and her husband, she takes upon herself Nabal’s guilt (1Sam 25:24); 2). she makes excuses for her husband’s bad behaviour (1Sam 25:25); 3). she responds to David’s challenge by preparing (v. 18) and by presenting (1Sam 15:27) gifts to him, acting on behalf of Nabal (but of course without his permission), doing what Nabal refused to do. In her prophetic speech (1Sam 25:26-31), Abigail makes frequent references to the Lord. She mentions the Lord’s name in the introductory oath formula, hwhy-yx; “as the Lord lives” (1Sam 25:26). The Lord is the one who restrained David from his evil purpose and 73 Ralph Dale Davis, 1 Samuel: Looking on the heart, 2 Vols., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1994. 114. 74 Jon D. Levenson, 1 Samuel 25 as literature and as history, 20. 33 vengeance (v. 26) and the one who will make a lasting house for David (v. 28), because he is fighting the Lord’s battles (v. 29). David is going to be preserved from his enemies because of the Lord his God (v. 29), and the Lord will bring his promises into fulfilment concerning David (v. 29-30). These references to the Lord not only sharpens the contrast with her husband’s godlessness, but gives a prophetic reference to what is going to happen with David: this is an anticipation of what God is going to promise David in His covenant (2Sam 7). Abigail’s speech is not only exposing her wisdom but also her prophetic insight. Abigail recognises David’s coming kingship, she says that David will be chosen “ruler over all Israel” (v. 30), and in speaking about building for him !m'a/n< tyIB; “a secure dynasty” (v. 28) by the Lord, anticipates the dynastic element of Nathan’s prophecy in 2Sam 7:8. 16, where the same language is used. In this way, the idea of the eternal, hereditary dynasty appears first in the speech of Abigail. This language becomes “a typical phraseology in Israelite-Judaean historiography”.74 David is assured by Abigail that he would indeed become king of Israel, but he has to come to the throne with a clear conscience: There is no need to take the vengeance into his own hands: God is going to do that, not David. The Lord is in control, and David is going to have a glorious future 5.1.2. Abigail’s moral superiority In a way David is also in contrast in the narrative: first, with himself. This is a different David than what we find in the previous episodes. In chapters 24 and 26, David considers it a sin to lift his hand against Saul and shed his blood; here only Abigail’s rhetorical genius saves David from bloodying his hands. Levenson looks at David’s activity with a cynical eye, in general saying that: 1). David’s request of Nabal was nothing more than simple extortion; 2). the entire conflict with Nabal and subsequent marriage to Abigail were politically motivated; 34 and 3). David’s illegitimate response to Nabal revealed the evil nature of his character.75 Abigail is better than David. David is reacting differently than how we have perceived his character until now.76 Abigail and Nabal are also in sharp contrast with Bathsheba and Uriah. The story of Abigail precedes the story of David and Bathsheba chronologically, and Berlin considers “a mirror image” of it.77 Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah was a good man, Nabal was a fool. Bathsheba could do nothing to save her husband, but Abigail does this, though Nabal did not deserve it. The relationship between Nabal and Abigail is one of disrespect, alienation and hostility, while David here appears to be respectful to social norms, open to reason, capable of self-restraint, and blameless.78 It is just the opposite, what we find out about him in the story of Bathsheba and Uriah. In the story of Abigail David’s apparent reserve marks him out as a character that is altogether more noble than the David who takes Bathsheba and than kills her husband. In the story of Bathsheba David commits murder because of a woman, while here by a woman David is prevented committing murder. Miscall summarises this: “In both stories, David gains a wife, but the process by which he gets them could not differ more radically.”79 5.1.3. Abigail’s marriage with David Levenson considers David’s marriage to Abigail as a pivotal move in his ascent to kingship at Hebron: “There is no (other) explanation of how a non-Calebite like David 75 Jon D. Levenson, 1 Samuel 25 as literature and as history, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 40, 1978. 76 In the preceding and following chapter the narrator is at great pains to show that, despite the opportunities given, David did not take the law into his own hands. We may note also that David’s reaction to Nabal’s insult is the opposite of his reaction to Shimei’s even more direct insults (2Sam 16:5-14). The reason for this may be that in 1Sam 25 David needs to be helped by Abigail to learn that kingship is going to be secured for him by God, while in 2Sam 16 he already learned this lesson. 77 Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1994. 30. 78 There is an impression that David and Abigail are strongly attracted to each other and yet “fully understand the propriety that demands that their attraction should not escalate into a fully consummated relationship”George G. Nicol, David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah: Transformations within a Triangle, 136. 79 Peter Miscall, Literary Unity in Old Testament Narrative, Semeia 15, 1979, 39. 35 managed to assume kingship in the capital of the Calebite patrimony, Hebron.”80 After the reference of David’s move to Hebron (2Sam 2:1-4a) the passage goes on without any break to note David’s wives, where Abigail is described as ylim.r>K;h; lb'în" tv,ae “the wife of Nabal the Carmelite”. So, David is the successor to Nabal the Calebite and the husband of a prominent Calebite woman, who bears a son called Chileab, reflecting probably Abigail’s Calebite origins (2Sam 3:3). This may be true, since in the early history of Israel there are several examples about political marriages, which could bestow legitimacy on an aspirant to the throne. Close examples for this are the narratives about Absalom, Adonijah and Abner.81 We already mentioned that this could explain why David married Michal, the daughter of Saul, and even Ahinoam, the wife of Saul. Ahinoam the Jezreelite is mentioned with Abigail in the account of David’s procession into Hebron (2Sam 2:2). We do not have a clear account about the past of Ahinoam. What we know is that only one person bears her name: #[;m'yxia-] tB; ~[;nyO xia] lWav' tv,ae ~vew> “the name of Saul’s wife, Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz” (1Sam 14:50). It may well be that when David came into Hebron, he had as wives on one side a wealthy Calebite, Abigail, and at the other side the former wife of Saul, Ahinoam. Even if we do not know the time when David married Saul’s former wife, it most probably happened, because Natan clearly points this out in his rebuke as a well-known thing: ^q,yxeB. ^yn<dao ] yven-> ta,w> ^yn<dao ] tyBe-ta, ^l. hn"T.a,w" “I gave you the household of your lord and the wives of your lord in your bosom.” (2Sam 12:8). Ahinoam is always mentioned before Abigail (1Sam 27:3. 30:5. 2Sam 2:2. 1Sam 3:2. 1Chron 3:1) and bears David a son before Abigail does (2Sam 3:2. 1Chron 3:1). So, Ahinoam 80 Jon D. Levenson, 1 Samuel 25 as literature and as history, 25. 81 The first two examples are in David’s family: Absalom on Ahitophel’s advice has intercourse with David’s concubines as part of his effort to capture the throne for himself (2Sam 16:20-23) and Adonijah asks for the hand of Abishag, David’s last mistress (1Kings 2:13-25), to which Solomon replies, “You might as well ask for the kingdom!” The third example is in Saul’s house: Abner’s assumption of Rizpah, one of Saul’s concubines makes Ishbaal suspect Abner’s loyalty to the house of Saul (2Sam 3:6-10). 36 could marry David before the conflict with the house of Nabal started. If this is so, then David could have laid claim to Saul’s throne even while Saul was still alive.82 Abigail, together with Nabal, her husband must have been very powerful figures in the Calebite clan, being at the pinnacle of the social status, as shown by the description of his wealth: three thousand sheep and one thousand goats. This is why he was holding %l,M,h; hTevm. Ki . … hT,v.mi “a banquet like that of a king” (1Sam 25:36). Levenson considers that “David picked a quarrel with Nabal with precisely such a marriage in mind”,83 which is an exaggeration of the matter, because the reasons we find in text are different. What we know for sure, is that through this marriage he got by chance a very powerful status which could contribute to his kingship in Hebron. 5.2. The Tekoite wise woman: 2Sam 14:4-20 The hm'k'x] hV'ai “wise woman” from Tekoa was instructed by Joab to go to David as a woman who had been “mourning a long time for the dead”. Joab put “in her mouth” the words of a tale (2Sam 14:2-3), according to which she is presumably a mother with two sons, one of whom killed the other in anger on the field. Her family now demands in revenge the death of the murderer, but in reality they hope to eliminate the sole heir of the family. Hearing this, David promises to give orders concerning the widow. But the wise woman continues her speech, until she receives immunity from any persecution. Then, she goes on again, until David swears by the Lord, saying: “not one hair of your son shall fall to the ground” (2Sam 14:11). At this point the woman changes her tune, and accuses David of “planning against the 82 As convincing evidence for all these Levenson considers the account of David’s reign in Hebron: “The chronology of 2Sam 2:10-11 corroborates this nicely, since it attributes a reign of two years to Saul’s son and successor Ishbaal and one of seven and one half to David at Hebron. This suggests that David may have been King of Judah for five and a half years while Saul ruled the rest of the tribes.” Jon D. Levenson, 1 Samuel 25 as literature and as history, 27. 83 Jon D. Levenson, 1 Samuel 25 as literature and as history, 27. 37 people of God” (2Sam 14:13), then pleasing for Absalom’s restoration. She quotes a proverb: “For we will surely die, and become like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again” (2Sam 14:14), then she applies the king’s decision to her own situation and convinces him. Absalom’s banishment is ended, but he could not see the king’s face; in other words, he remains in another exile, in Jerusalem. The story told by the woman, as we will see, does not represent a real event. It was only a ruse used by Joab to manipulate David to permit the return of his murderer son from exile. But the story was presented plausibly enough for the king to believe. The listener or reader at the beginning cannot find any sign to cause him/her to suspect that the story is not a real one. Everything is so vital, so realistic! The story saturated with emotions and moves dramatically to its climax, reaching its goal. David realises that Joab is behind this, that the most important question is not the situation of the woman’s son (that is only an introduction), but Absalom’s fratricide and his restoration. 5.2.1. Literary considerations The pattern of this episode (2Sam 14:1-22) may be presented like this: Joab’s plan, vv. 1-3 Woman’s distress caused by her family, vv. 4-7 The king resolves the case, vv. 8-11 Israel’s distress caused by the king, vv. 12-14 The woman softens the accusation, vv. 15-17 Joab discovered, vv. 18-20 King’s decision, vv. 21-2284 It is clear that the main part of the passage is made up of the woman’s conversation with the king. Joab may be there, in the background; but this had her own special ability in handling the words. She speaks the right words at the right time, redirecting the course of events. She summarised her distress caused by her family and mentions the fact that their passion for justice is only a cover for their greed: they want vreAYh;-ta, 38 ~G: hd'ymivn. : “to destroy the heir also” (2Sam 14:7). If the remaining son will be executed, not only will she remain without support, but also with no descendant and the property will become available to the extended family. In other words, she is saying that in the name of justice they plan injustice. Among the heavily stressed extenuating facts the worst thing which could happen is to remain without posterity, often mentioned in courses. Hoftijzer points out, that “the clan, who in this case asks for justice does not do so for justice’s sake. They are greedy: their aim is the inheritance not justice (v. 7).85 David decides to protect the heir. Asking permission to continue, the woman turns this decision into an accusation that the king is being two-faced: he decided that the woman’s banished son should be restored, but he does nothing to restore his own banished son. With her parallel case she assumes that Absalom is the (next) heir to the throne and by depriving Israel of the heir, David acts “against the people of God” (2Sam 14:13). For awhile she philosophises that mortality is unavoidable and God wants to preserve and restore life, but immediately after that she reverts again to her own situation (2Sam 14:15-17), explaining her reason for applying to the king. Her long speech is puzzling: it seems useless to use so many words after reaching the main point. But there is no reason to consider her a highly talkative woman: an   knows how to present her case and how to act in a given situation. She does this with a very specific reason: to delude David that the main point is not her real main point! As Hertzberg rightly notes: First, the woman means to give the impression that her own personal problem is the reason for her appearance, and the case of the exiled king’s son is mentioned only incidentally, as a related instance. By the construction 84 The pattern is partly borrowed from: Ralph Dale Davis, 2 Samuel: Out of every adversity, Christian Focus Publications, Geanies House, Fearn, Great Britain, 1999. 145. 85 Jacob Hoftijzer, David and the Tekoite Woman, Vetus Testamentum no. 20, 1970, p. 421-422. 39 of her address she means to make what is, of course, her main concern, the case of Absalom, seem to be a subsidiary matter.86 But David is also wise (2Sam 14:20), as the Tekoite woman has noticed. He will not confuse main points with sub-points, and so asks the woman if Joab’s hand is not involved in all this. With another exposé using 43 words, the woman’s answer is: Yes. Even so, David ends Absalom’s banishment (2Sam 14:21).87 5.2.2. Textual considerations The expression in 2Sam 14:3, that Joab h'ypiB. ~yrIb'D>h;-ta, ba'Ay ~f,Yw" : “put the words in her mouth” is found also in Exod 4:15, Num 22:38 and Ezra 8:17, and means always an instruction given by a superior to a subordinate, who has to carry out the received instructions. The question of David in 2Sam 14:19, tazO-lk'B. %T"ai ba'Ay dy:h], refers exactly to this, i.e. if the woman acts completely on Joab’s instructions. The woman’s answer is affirmative. This means that Joab instructed her about the matter in general, but could not instruct her about all the details of the discussion. The telling of the story in a skilful way like this, is still the property of the hm'k'x] hV'ai, since Joab could not anticipate the king’s possible reaction. Joab had the initiative in this endeavour, but wise the woman of Tekoa executed his commands, with her very special ability. Joab took the decision to intercede for Absalom, but the wise woman carried out his wish. 86 Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, The Old Testament Library, Philadelphia, Westminster, 1964, p. 332333. 87 Bellefontaine believes, “there is no clear evidence that the paramount is legally bound in parallel cases by the verdict he pronounces in a previous case”. However, the general feeling after the Tekoite woman’s rhetoric is that she convinced David. Through a normal understanding of the narrative the reader arrives to believe that Absalom’s return to Jerusalem was achieved by the wisdom of the Tekoite woman. See Elizabeth Bellefontaine, Customary Law and Citizenship: Judicial Aspects of 2Samuel 14:4-21, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 38, 1987, p. 62. 40 The meaning of the verb  in %l,M,h; dwID' lk;T.w: is stronger than ‘to long’ or ‘yearn’ or “desire”, as most of the English translations understands.88 It is better to follow the Septuagint in this case: “and the spirit of king David ceased to go out after Abessalom”, or the Vulgate: “cessavitque David rex persequi Absalom”, “king David ceased to persecute Absalom”.89 The translation of McCarter, or Keil and Delitzsch, who gave to this verb a hostile sense in 2Sam 13:39, is correct: “the king’s enthusiasm for marching out against (Absalom) was spent”, or “and it (this) held king David back from going out to Absalom”.90 In 2Sam 14:1 there is no verb ‘long/long for’, and the verse simply means, that Joab knew (perceived) 91 that the heart of the king was either ‘upon Absalom’ (i.e., he was thinking about him) or ‘against Absalom’ (he remained hostile to him)92. If David had been yearning for Absalom, the whole strategy of Joab would become unnecessary; but if he is ‘against’ Absalom then the manipulating manoeuvre is understandable. 2Sam 14:24 clearly shows that David was not to welcome Absalom back with open arms. His grief because of Amnon’s death gradually diminished in time, but this has as a result only that he did not punish Absalom for his wickedness. He remained content with keeping Absalom in banishment. This is why Joab made use of the Tekoite wise woman, rb'D'h; ynEP.-ta, bBes; rWb[]b;l. to try “to change the present situation” (2Sam 14:20). 88 This is how the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Version 1611/1769, the New King James Version 1982, the American Standard Version 1901, the Revised Standard Version 1952, the New American Standard Bible 1977, the New International Version 1984, the English Standard Version 2001, and The Webster Bible 1833 translates it. 89 This is how The New Jerusalem Bible and New Living Translation translates it. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. 2 Samuel, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday, 1984, p. 344. 90 91 The interpretation of the verb  (know, with added idea of perceive, be aware, taking note) in 2Sam 14:1 is explained by Francis Brown, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with the cooperation of S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, Hendrickson, 1979, p. 293. 92 This later translation is more likely, in the light of Dan 11:28. See also: C. E. Keil, and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, Vol. III. I & II Samuel, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, p. 405-406. 41 The verb  in 2Sam 14:13 means ‘to think, to reckon’,93 but may have the meaning ‘to plan, to devise’, and in some cases it clearly bears a meaning close to ‘to realize, to do’. Thus the expression tazOK' hT'b.v;x' hM'l'w> may be translated as “why have you (schemed and) done something like this”,94 bearing the accusation that David devised and did evil against God’s people. The woman goes on and reproaches the king that he violates his own ruling by not letting Absalom return and that his people have to pay for it. Hoftijzer suggests a free translation of the second half of v. 14: “Will not God dedicate Himself to seeing that a banished one does not remain exiled from Him (i.e. He most certainly will dedicate Himself) and will He not find ways to do so?”95 He takes this sentence as a rhetorical question, and the negation as negating both verbal forms, which is a normal understanding of the sentence. The Tekoite woman with the expression yTil.bil. tAbv'xm] ; bv;xw' > xD'nI WNM,mi xD;yI suggests that David is not in harmony with God, who devises means, so that the banished one be not an outcast from him. 5.2.3. Hermeneutical considerations The interpretation of the words of the woman is not always easy, we see this especially in v. 9: yqin" Aas.kiw> %l,M,h;w> ybia' tyBe-l[;w> !wO[h' , %l,M,h; ynIdao ] yl;[' “o my lord, the king, the iniquity is on me and my father's house, but the king and his throne are guiltless”. This means that the woman and her family will bear all the consequences and the royal house will not have to face them, if the king is going to make a decision deviating from the established norm. But it seems that these words are not related only with the question of the consequences, but were meant to induce David after he had made a vague decision, to make a 93 Francis Brown, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with the cooperation of S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, Hendrickson, 1979, p. 363. 94 See: Jer 18:11, 26:3, Ezek 38:10, Ps 35:20, and especially Gen 50:20, where Joseph’s brothers devised and did evil against him, but God devised and did help him out of his difficulties. 95 Jacob Hoftijzer, David and the Tekoite Woman, 437. 42 more specific one, and had this result. The woman received the king’s decision strengthened by an oath. The only partial parallel we have in the OT is in 1Sam 25:24, where Abigail says to David that !wO[h ' , ynIdoa] ynIa]-yBi “upon me, my lord, is the iniquity”. In this parallel case the usual interpretation has no meaning, that Abigail is ready to bear the consequences, if David will abandon the normal procedure. Even if she speaks about her sin, which must be forgiven (1Sam 25:28), on the other hand she incriminated Nabal and exculpates herself (1Sam 25:2526). A solution is given by Gevarjahu quoted by Hoftijzer, that “the formula was a polite way of expressing that David and ‘his throne’ would be responsible, namely for the blood of the last son left to the widow, should be killed as retribution for his crime”96. This fits both 2Sam 14:9 and 1Sam 25:24, but if we look at the other cases97 where people express their feelings of guilt, they are not at all a polite way of saying that the other party is free from guilt. Rather, they are a sincere confession of guilt and acceptance of the responsibility, and in many other cases is followed by a plea for not to be punished.98 Therefore, the confession of guilt may be viewed as part of a plea for forgiveness, where the forgiveness is the main aim. Hoftijzer correctly expresses this: In both cases (i.e. 1Sam 25:24 and 2Sam 14:9), Abigail and the Tekoite woman make a confession of guilt. They both intercede for a guilty party (Nabal and the fratricide son) and try to get mercy. ... The confession in the first place is meant to support the plea. If this is so, the central point of these texts is not who takes (or has to take) the responsibility in the case under consideration. But uttering the formula in question both women throw 96 Jacob Hoftijzer, David and the Tekoite Woman, 425. 97 Note the confession of guilt expressed by one person to another: by David to Nathan (2Sam 12:13), by Shimei to David (2Sam 19:21), by Hezekiah to the king of Assiria (2Kings 18:14), by Aron to Moses (Num 12:11); and the confession of guilt expressed by people to God: David’s confession after the census (2Sam 24:10), the people’s confession of their idolatry (Judg 10:10. 15), the people’s another similar confession (Judg 12:10), and a similar one made by the exiles (1Kings 8:47, 2Chron 6:37). Fore more on this subject see: Jacob Hoftijzer, David and the Tekoite Woman, 425. 98 See the long list of these cases in Jacob Hoftijzer, David and the Tekoite Woman, 426. 43 themselves on the mercy of David: they hope by doing so to further the chance that their request will be granted.99 5.2.4. Judicial considerations The narrative about the Tekoite woman has a judicial character.100 This woman told her story in such a way that David considering the circumstances could make an authoritative decision against the established norm of his time. Gunn denies the legal nature of the story, arguing that “the legal element is merely an accident of these particular cases where the one to whom the parable is addressed happens to be a king with (implicit) judicial powers.”101 However, we have to be aware of the fact that the judicial element may be there, even if by accident. The king before whom the pretended widow of Tekoa appears is functioning as the highest level of power, in social, political or even religious matters, “who has the authority to suspend the normal operation of deeply rooted customary law, and decide in favour of the petitioner”.102 The woman confronts David with the fact that God as guarantor for the king’s ruling, because of the oath sworn by the king, will let whomsoever banished from Israel to return, i.e. also Absalom. If the king acts against his own ruling, “punishment will follow and still will be of no avail, God will give effect of his ruling”.103 More light is thrown on the whole passage if we consider the comparisons used in the narrative. Firstly, the case presented by the woman is comparable with Absalom’s situation. The woman had two sons (as David had Absalom and Amnon). One killed the other (as 99 Jacob Hoftijzer, David and the Tekoite Woman, 427. He also argues, that ynId ß oa] ynIïa]-yBi (‘upon me, my Lord’) is a formula used in both 1Sam 25:24 and 2Sam 14:9 not as an expression of the willingness of the confessor to take the full consequences of the evil deeds but to throw herself at the mercy of the other party and so to avoid punishment. 100 The story of the Tekoite woman has been called a “judicial parable”, or a “judgment-eliciting parable”. See the lengthy discussion about this in: Elizabeth Bellefontaine, Customary law and citizenship: Judicial aspects of 2Samuel 14:4-21, 47-72. 101 David M. Gunn, David and the gift of the kingdom, 41. 102 Jacob Hoftijzer, David and the Tekoite Woman, 438. 103 Jacob Hoftijzer, David and the Tekoite Woman, 438. 44 Absalom killed Amnon). Than the surviving son’s security is in danger, if the king will not intervene (Absalom is in danger). He must be saved, because he is the only heir (Absalom is the heir). It seems – even if there are not enough details to determine with absolute certainty – that the woman’s sons’ fight was not so serious, because there was no intention to kill each other. But a blow proved to be fatal, and this mutual hostility had a very sad result: one of the brothers died. This situation falls under the category of manslaughter, which is regulated in Num 35:6-34, Deut 19:1-13 and Josh 20. But Absalom’s fratricide was a calculated, organised, well prepared act, as a result of a long lasting, carefully nurtured hatred: “Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar” (2Sam 13:22). The commandment to the servants to strike Amnon (2Sam 13:28) betrays his murderous intentions. This is crying for justice, not for mercy. There is not enough basis to say that “the decision of the king in a special juridical case was also binding for parallel cases”,104 because there is no parallelism between the pretended son of the Tekoite woman and Absalom. Absalom’s situation is different from what the woman presents to the king, and deciding in favour of the woman’s son is not a precedent for Absalom’s case. Permitting Absalom to return has nothing to do with justice. Secondly, David is compared with an angel of the Lord, because he has the wisdom of an angel (v. 20). In 1Sam 29:9 Achish says to David that he likes him as much as he does an angel of the Lord, and in 2Sam 19:28 Mephiboshet sees David as an angel of the Lord, who may do as he pleases. In all these cases the common feature is that these people want to flatter David for one reason or other. The saying of the woman of Tekoa in this understanding is meant to be only a flattery. Against this view is the opinion of Mowinckel, who referring to this text says: “through his anointing and endowment with the divine spirit the king also 104 Jacob Hoftijzer, David and the Tekoite Woman, 421. 45 receives superhuman wisdom… he discerns all things and accomplishes what he wills”.105 The total knowledge of David is expressed with putting two opposites together: “knowing good and evil”. With this the woman tells David why she expected to have her request granted: it is because the king is so extremely wise and merciful. Blaikie compares this with the juridical parable of Natan (2Sam 12:1-4) about David’s sin, and the juridical parable of an unknown prophet (1Kings 20:38-43) about the escape of Benhadad.106 Although both Natan and the wise Tekoite woman tried to convince David with their juridical parables, he points out the differences: There was a world-wide difference between the purpose of the parable of Nathan and that of the wise woman of Tekoah. Nathan’s parable was designed to rouse the king’s conscience as against his feelings, the woman of Tekoah’s, as prompted by Joab, to rouse his feelings against his conscience.107 The differences, compared with the Tekoite woman’s parable and its presentation, are also remarkable. The woman of Tekoa prostrated herself before David, which neither of the prophets did. She asks permission to proceed. Neither of the prophets do this; but they confront the king without any introduction, presenting the consequences without any restraint. The woman speaks highly about David, but none of the prophets do so. The background of these is that “the prophet has a status that a normal person does not have and therefore he can permit himself to say things other people cannot”.108 At first it seems that David is not able to distinguish between a true and fictitious story, but this is not so. The author is more concerned to show the wisdom of the Tekoite woman: 105 S. Mowinckel, He that Cometh, Oxford, 1956, 66. 106 W. G. Blaikie, The Second Book of Samuel, The Expositor’s Bible, Jenning & Graham, Cincinnati, 208 107 W. G. Blaikie, The Second Book of Samuel, The Expositor’s Bible, Jenning & Graham, Cincinnati, 208. 108 Jacob Hoftijzer, David and the Tekoite Woman, 443. 46 her wisdom is so genuine and worthy of praise, that makes David compassionate of her presented situation.109 According to Simon, the ruling of David could not be considered a biding precedent for Absalom’s case, because the case presented by the woman “contained numerous extenuating circumstances”.110 The question is, how we view these extenuating circumstances: do they change the basic character of the case, or are they only additions, which do not change anything? Hoftijzer’s opinion is preferable here. He notes that “the two cases are considered to be parallels notwithstanding the extenuating circumstances”.111 He also explains, that for juridical cases being parallels, they only “needed to be so in the basic facts”112, making a difference between basic facts and circumstantial facts. It may be that Joab’s intention was to bring a gradual change in David’s attitude, as Simon believes,113 but after the interview with the woman the change was an immediate one. This change seems to be a result of his previous decision in the fictitious case presented by the woman. The Tekoite woman confronts David with the consequences of his decision. With this she reveals that the presented case is not a real one, but was as a kind of legal trap. In other words, “she drops her mask”.114 She confronts David with the fact that his decision in the case of her fratricide son is a binding precedent for the case of Absalom. She does this by saying that because of this decision David himself is now guilty: If he keeps Absalom’s exile then he violates his decision, strengthened by an oath. More than that, she reproaches David that he 109 This is against the view of Whybray who considers this “a story of Joab’s wisdom rather than that of the woman”. See: R. N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative. A Study of II Sam. 9-20 and I Kings 1 and 2, Studies in biblical Theology, Second Series 9, London, 1968. 36ff. The narrator presents the woman as wise, not Joab. The woman of Tekoa was able to handle a very tricky case, a real test for her wisdom, even if she was instructed. Not the wisdom of the woman but the wisdom of Joab, who designed the whole strategy should be questioned, because it is a foolish thing to appeal to God’s mercy (2Sam 14:14) in a case that requires his justice. He should have known that there should be no mercy if there is no penitence. 110 Uriel Simon, Poor man's ewe-lamb, 224. 111 Jacob Hoftijzer. David and the Tekoite Woman, 423. 112 Jacob Hoftijzer. David and the Tekoite Woman, 423. 113 Uriel Simon, Poor man's ewe-lamb, 225. 47 “acts against the people of God”: By letting Absalom stay in exile the king takes from the people their presumptive heir and makes Israel like a widow when David dies. This may be an allusion to the woman’s situation, who is a widow having her son as the only heir. Human beings are mortal – says the woman – and if David waits too long to reconcile himself with the exiled son, it may be too late. In this way, David is acting against the people of God (2Sam 14:13). The wise Tekoite woman confronts David with the fact that his decision in the woman’s case makes him guilty, and now the people have to pay heavily for his guilt. 5.2.5. Social considerations The “customary law”, according to Bellefontaine115 functioned at different levels of social segments, before the monarchy, at the level of  and  The was the extended family, or “multiple family household”, the basic social and economic unit, which was ruled by the head, a male figure who had an absolute authority over the . Several  being joined together, they formed a , a clan, a protective association of extended families, which most of the time lived together within the village or town. The , the tribe, was constituted by several . This information helps us to see that before the monarchy, decision-making was common at and  levels, but there is no textual evidence about decision making at  level. However, we do not need to believe that this system of decision making ceased to function after the establishment of a centralized political system. In the transition period of David’s time, moving from tribal to monarchical Israel, there 114 Jacob Hoftijzer. David and the Tekoite Woman, 429. 115 Elizabeth Bellefontaine, Customary law and citizenship: Judicial aspects of 2Samuel 14:4-21, 47-72. 48 was a continual need to consolidate the king’s office. The Tekoite wise woman obtained the decision for Absalom’s return in such a way that the king’s office as supreme judicial authority was strengthened. The former king, Saul, relied only on his military status and achievements, but David was operating as judge, who “administered judgment and justice to all his people” (2Sam 8:15). David is confronted with the request to suspend the normal operation of the law, and to interfere in local judicial activity, overturning a legitimately reached judgment of the . With this he risked to alienate a group which was part of his power base, and this deterred him from making a clear and forceful decision at first. He tried to dismiss the wise woman with a vague promise that he will issue some ‘orders’ (2Sam 14:8). But the Tekoite woman is not content until she receives the desired verdict. She presses on with her speech; and David decides that the son, who by normal law should die, shall live and that the kinsman who in spite of the king’s judgement would kill the son (in accord with the law) would die (2Sam 14:10-11).116 5.2.6. Rhetorical considerations The woman’s appeal with respect to with Absalom’s situation had two specific goals: first that the fratricide should go unpunished, and second that the offender be restored to his former status as son and heir. She got only half of her desire: David suspended the punishment for homicide, but Absalom was not fully restored because he couldn’t see the king’s face. The wisdom in the woman’s story is not only demonstrated in her ability to extort a decision from David, which could constitute a binding precedent for Absalom, but also because she presents sufficient reasons to convince David to make an exception to a 116 The woman tries to relieve David of any possible risks by taking on herself any consequences of the decision, because in addition to the political risk, David is aware that he also risks possible repercussions from God, by failing to avenge the dead brother’s blood. 49 previously pronounced legal decision without being perceived as a weak king, but as a wise king, who is in control. In her speech, the wise woman makes use of imagery, as Alfons Schulz notes: The woman of Tekoa calls the apparently intended killing of her only son the quenching of the coal left to her (2Sam 14:7). She compares human death with the spilling of water (v. 14). Finally, she, like Achish, calls David an Angel of God (vv. 17-20).117 The woman concludes her speech with a blessing (v. 17). It is not easy to define. Compared with possible similar cases (1Chr 22:16, 2Chr 19:11, Gen 28:1, 47:10, 2Sam 19:40, 1Kigs 8:66) it seems that the blessing is used as a sign that the speaker preferred to use to end the conversation about a certain subject. This is supported by 2Sam 13:25, where Absalom presses the king to come to the feast, but the king refuses “and blesses him”, thus stopping the conversation on the subject. By speaking the blessing, the woman tries to end a very difficult conversation. She is a very wise woman indeed, who is able to carry out a delicate task.118 Notwithstanding her vulnerable position, an ordinary person and moreover a woman, she is able to succeed; and neither she nor Joab is punished and Absalom is allowed to return. 5.2.7. Summary 117 Alfonz Schulz. Narrative Art in the Book of Samuel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series no. 116, p.121. He notes that Abigail (1Sam 25:29) and Achish also make use of imagery. 118 Nicol considers the Tekoite woman functioning “purely and simply as an agent” who does no more than deliver the words of Joab to the king (2Sam 14.3, 19). However, as we have seen before, there are enough arguments to consider her as a full fledged character of the narrartive. See: George G. Nicol. The wisdom of Joab and the wise woman of Tekoa, Studia Theologica, no. 36/2, 1982, 97. 50 6. Conclusion Women in the Books of Samuel are important catalysts in the plot of these narratives. They are present everywhere, shaping the events, and subsequently, shaping the history of Israel. At the end of this work, some conclusions are worthy to be drawn. 6.1. Literary observations One of the characteristics we may notice about these women in the Books of Samuel, is the detailed presentation of their story. We get generally much more information regarding them, than in other records of David’s history. This shows the importance of these women in influencing Israel’s and David’s life: they earned more attention than many others. The other characteristic is the very selective presentation of what have happened. The writer(s) included in their material only what was of vital importance. This is because these narratives not as exhaustive histories, but as God-authorized versions of how we should view that history. It supposes that we are going to identify with the point of view of the author. 6.2. Theological observations The delimited portion of the Bible, from Deuteronomy to 2Kings (excluding Ruth), includes the Books of Samuel, is called “Deuteronomistic History”. We are not going to argue for, or object to the way the assumptions and applications of this hypothesis are used. But we can make the observation that the double message of hope and condemnation of the so called “Deuteronomistic School” is there, beginning with Hannah, and ending with the Tekoite woman, in all the narratives about women in the Books of Samuel. This is because all these stories are not about women, not even about David or Saul, but about the Covenant God of Israel, who keeps His promises and preserves His people among many perils. These narratives about women characters are directing us to the Lord, who does all things trough His human, weak, often female instruments. 51 6.3. Practical observations Hannah, piously attending the periodic religious gatherings of Israel, a woman of prayer, was chosen to be an instrument in God’s hand, to change the chaotic course of Israel’s history. By giving birth to Samuel, the last judge and first prophet, Hannah tells us, that the Lord is not limited in numbers in what He can accomplish. He can do anything, and nothing is too hard for Him. What God requires from us, is a trustful, prayerful and humble spirit, as Hannah had. Sexual perversion in any form is repugnant to God. It carries devastating consequences; it is a crime both against man, one’s self and God. But often those who have erred can be quickly restored if they confess their wrongs and repent of their wicked ways. However, halfmeasures can never help to achieve the same restoration. Bathsheba and Tamar are examples that too often God’s people endeavor to achieve God’s work in the world, using tools and techniques drawn from the world, instead of relying upon God. Abigail is a proof that God has endowed women with unusual attributes of generosity and self-giving. Herein lies their greatest charm. It is seldom that God can use those of great talents, because gifted people are often proud. Abigail was used as a gifted instrument because of her deep humility. God prepares His female tools with great care, in special circumstances, to fit and equip them for the special deeds they are called for. Jealousy is one of the most despicable of all sins. It destroys even the one who is harboring it: destroyed Saul, and destroyed Michal as well. God’s servants may expect opposition and ridicule from many, but it is the bitterest when these are coming from family and friends. We should always know that any attack on God’s chosen servant is an attack against God Himself, who called him to His service. The battle is not ours alone, but His. 52 Bibliography Books and Commentaries: Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative, Basic Books, 1981. Anderson, A. A. 2 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary. Word Books, Publisher, Dallas, Texas, 1989. Randall C. Bailey, David in Love and War, The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, no. 75. Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series no. 70, Bible and Literature Series 17, Academic Press, Sheffield, 1997. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1994. Blaikie, W. G. The Second Book of Samuel, The Expositor’s Bible, Jenning & Graham, Cincinnati, p. 208. Brown, Francis. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with the cooperation of S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, Hendrickson, 1979. Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, John Knox Press, Luisville, Kentucky, 1990. Carlson, R. A. David, then chosen King, Almquist & Wiksell, Uppsala, 1964. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 1979. Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom, an Introduction, John Knox Press, Atlanta, 1981. Davis, Ralph Dale. 1 Samuel: Looking on the heart, 2 Vols., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1994. Davis, Ralph Dale. 2 Samuel: Out of every adversity, Christian Focus Publications, Geanies House, Fearn, Great Britain, 1999. Driver, S. R. in Notes on the Hebrew text and the topography of the Books of Samuel, Oxford, 1913. Fee, Gordon D. and Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, A guide to Understanding the Bible, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982. Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. IV. Vow and Desire (1Sam 1-12), Van Gorcum 1993, Assen, The Netherlands. Gordon, Robert P. I & II Samuel: A Commentary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1996. 53 Gunn, David M. The Fate of King Saul, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, nr. 14, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1980. Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I & II Samuel, The Old Testament Library, Westminster, Philadelphia, 1964. Keil, C. E. and Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, Vol. III. I & II Samuel, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 10, Word Books, Publisher, Dallas, Texas, 1983. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. I Samuel, The Anchor Bible Commentary, Doubleday, 1980. McCarter, Kyle, JR. Textual Criticism. Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Fortess Press, Philadelphia,1986. Miscall, Peter D. 1 Samuel, A Literary Reading, 1986, Indiana University Press, Bloomington Mowinckel S. He that Cometh, Oxford, 1956. Noll, K. L.The Faces of David, Journal for the Study of The Old Testament, Supplement Series 242, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Rost, Leonard. The Succession to the Throne of David, Sheffield, Almond, 1982, German original: 1926. Woudstra, Marten H. The Ark of the Covenant from Conquest to Kingship, Presbiterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, Pa., 1965. Articles: Ackerman, James S. Knowing good and evil: a literary analysis of the court history in 2Samuel 9-20 and 1Kings 1-2, Journal of Biblical Literature no. 109/1. 1990, 41-64. Ap-Thomas, Dafydd R. Saul's “Uncle” Vetus Testamentum no. 11, 1961, 241-245. Auld, A. Graeme. Ho, Craig Y. S. The Making of David and Goliath, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 56, 1992, 19-39. Bailey, Randall C. The Redemption of YHWH: A Literary Critical Function of the Songs of Hannah and David, Biblical Interpretation no. 3, 1995, 213-231. Bellefontaine, Elizabeth. Customary law and citizenship: Judicial aspects of 2Samuel 14:421, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 38, 1987, 47-72. Berlin, Adele. Characterization in biblical narrative: David's wives [Michal, Abigail, Bathsheba, and Abishag] Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 23, 1982, 6985. Beuken, W. A. M. 1 Samuel 28: The prophet as “hammer of witches”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 6, 1978, 3-17. 54 Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Did Saul make Gibeon his capital? Vetus Testamentum no. 24, 1974, 17. Bowker, John Westerdale. Speeches in Acts: a study in proem and yelammedenu form, New Testament Studies no. 14, 1967, 96-111. Brooks, Simcha Shalom. Saul and the Samson Narrative. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 71, 1996, 19-25. Brueggemann, Walter A. Narrative Coherence and Theological Intentionality in 1 Samuel 18, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 55, 1993, 225-243. Brueggemann, Walter A. On coping with curse: a study of 2Sam 16:5-14, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 36, 1974, 175-192. Brueggemann, Walter A. I Samuel 1: a sense of a beginning, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 102/1, 1990, 33-48. Camp, Claudia V. The wise women of 2 Samuel: a role model for women in early Israel? Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 43, 1981, 14-29. Ceresko, Anthony R. A rhetorical analysis of David's “boast”, (1 Samuel 17:34-37): some reflections of method, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 47, 1985, 58-74. Cohen, H Hirsch. David and Bathsheba, Journal of Bible and Religion no. 33, 1965, 142-148. Cook, Joan E. Hannah's desire, God's design: early interpretations of the story of Hannah, Book Review in Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 62/3, 2000, 516-517. Coxon, Peter W. A note on "Bathsheba" in 2 Sam 12:1-6, Biblica no. 62/2, 1981, 247-250. Cryer, Frederick H. David's rise to power and the death of Abner: an analysis of 1 Samuel 26:14-16 and its redaction-critical implications, Vetus Testamentum no. 35, 1985, 385394. Culpepper, R Alan. Narrative criticism as a tool for proclamation: 1 Samuel 13, Review and Expositor no. 84, 1987, 33-40. Daube, David. Absalom and the Ideal King, Vetus Testamentum no. 48, 1998, 315-325. Demsky, Aaron. Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon: an historico-geographic riddle, American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin no. 212, 1973, 26-31. Dragga, Sam. In the shadow of the judges: the failure of Saul, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 38, 1987, 39-46. Eckart, Otto. Silo und Jerusalem, Theologische Zeitschrift no. 32, 1976, 65-77. Edelman, Diana. Saul's battle against Amaleq (1 Sam 15), Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 35, 1986, 71-84. Edenburg, Cynthia. How (Not) to Murder a King: Variations on a Theme in 1Sam 24. 26, Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament no. 12/1, 1998, 64-85. 55 Fensham, Frank Charles. Battle between the men of Joab and Abner as a possible ordeal by battle? Vetus Testamentum no. 20, 1970, 356-357. Firth, David G. Shining the lamp: the rhetoric of 2Samuel 5-24, Tyndale Bulletin no. 52/2, 2001, 203-224. Fontaine, Carole. The bearing of wisdom on the shape of 2Samuel 11-12 and 1Kings 3, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 34, 1986, 61-77. Freedman, David Noel. The spelling of the name "David" in the Hebrew Bible, Hebrew Annual Review no. 7, 1983, 89-104. Frolov, Serge and Orel, Vladimir. David in Jerusalem, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 111/4, 1999, 609-615. Garsiel, Moshe. The story of David and Bathsheba: a different approach, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 55/2, 1993, 244-262. Gesenius-Krautsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1910. Gibbons, Shauna. Tamar, International Review of Mission no. 83, 1994, 617. Gitay, Yahoshua. Reflections on the Poetics of the Samuel Narrative: The Question of the Ark Narrative. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 54/1, 1992, 221-230. Glück, J. J. Merab or Michal, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 77/1, 1965, 72-81. Good, Robert. 2Samuel 8, Tyndale Bulletin no. 52/1, 2001, 129-138. Grant, J Jeremy M. Second Samuel 23:1-7, Interpretation no. 51/4, 1997, 415-418. Gray, Mark. Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13.7-15: The Rape of Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 77, 1998, 39-54. Gunn, David M. David and the gift of the kingdom, Semeia no. 3, 1975, 14-45. Dirksen, Peter B. Why Was David Disqualified as Temple Builder? The Meaning of 1 Chronicles 22.8, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 70, 1996, 51-56. Hauer, Christian and E. Does. 1 Samuel 9:1-11:15 reflect the extension of Saul's dominions? Journal of Biblical Literature no.86, 1967, 306-310. Holladay, William L. Form and word-play in David's lament over Saul and Jonathan, Vetus Testamentum no. 20, 1970, 153-189. Hoftijzer, Jacob. David and the Tekoite Woman, Vetus Testamentum no. 20, 1970, 419-444. Horsley, G. H. R. Speeches and dialogue in Acts, New Testament Studies no. 32/4, 1986, 609614. 56 Jobling, David. The Sense of Biblical Narrative. Three Structural Analyses in the Old Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series no. 7, 1978, 1-25. Jobling, David. The Sense of Biblical Narrative. Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible. II. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series no. 39, 1986, 9-63. Jobling, David. Jonathan: A Structural Study in I Samuel, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series no. 7, Sheffield, JSOT press, 1978. Kessler, John. Sexuality and politics: the motif of the displaced husband in the Books of Samuel, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 62/3, 2000, 409-423. Knauf, Ernst Axel. Saul, David, and the Philistines: from geography to history, Biblische Notizen no. 109, 2001, 15-18. Koopmans, William T. The testament of David in 1 Kings 2:1-10, Vetus Testamentum no. 41, 1991, 429-449. Kruse, Heinz. David's covenant, Vetus Testamentum no. 35, 1985,139-164. Lawton, Robert B. 1 Samuel 18: David, Merob, and Michal, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 51, 1989, 423-425. Lawton, Robert B. Saul, Jonathan and the “Son of Jesse”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 58, 1993, 35-46. Levenson, Jon D. 1 Samuel 25 as literature and as history, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 40, 1978, 11-28. Levenson, Jon D. and Halpers, Baruch. The political import of David’s marriages, Journal of Biblical Literature no. 99/4, 1980, 507-518. Lewis, Theodore J. The songs of Hannah and Deborah: CHDL-II (“growing plump”) Journal of Biblical Literature no. 104, 1985, 105-108. Lewis, Theodore J. The Textual History of the Song of Hannah: 1 Samuel II 1-10, Vetus Testamentum no. 44, 1994, 18-46. Mason, Rex. Some Chronistic themes in the “speeches” in Ezra and Nehemiah, Expository Times no. 101, 1989, 72-76. Mccarter, P. Kyle, Jr. The apology of David, Journal of Biblical Literature no. 99/4, 1980, 489-502. McCarter, P Kyle, Jr. The historical David, Interpretation no. 40/2, 1986, 117-129. McDonough, Sean M. “And David Was Old, Advanced in Years”: 2 Samuel XXIV 18-25, 1 Kings I 1, and Genesis XXIII-XXIV, Vetus Testamentum no. 49, 1999, 128-131. Miller, Patrick D. Trouble and woe: interpreting the biblical laments, Interpretation no. 37, 1983, 32-45. 57 Peter Miscall, Literary Unity in Old Testament Narrative, Semeia 15, 1979, 27-44. Morgenstern, Julian. David and Jonathan, Journal of Biblical Literature no. 78, 1959, 322325. Nicol, George G. David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah: Transformations within a Triangle, Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament, no. 12/1, 1998, 130-145. Nicol, George G. The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 73, 1997, 43-54. Nicol, George G. The wisdom of Joab and the wise woman of Tekoa, Studia Theologica, no. 36/2, 1982, 97-104. Olyan, Saul. Zadok’s origins and the tribal politics of David, Journal of Biblical Literature, no. 101/2, 1982, 177-193. Parry, Donald W. Retelling Samuel: Echoes of the Books of Samuel in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Revue de Qumran no. 17/1-4, 1996, 293-306. Perdue, Leo G. Is there anyone left of the house of Saul: ambiguity and the characterization of David in the succession narrative, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 30, 1984, 67-84. Perry M., Sternberg M. “Caution: a Literary Text!” Problems in the Poetics and the Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Hasifrut 2, 1970, (Hebrew), 608-663., English summary: XV-XVIII. Petersen, David L. Portraits of David, Canonical or otherwise, Interpretation no. 40/2, 1986, 130-175. Pigott, Susan M. 1 Samuel 28 - Saul and the Not So Wicked Witch of Endor, Review and Expositor no. 95, 1998, 435-444. Plozin, Robert, Divine and anonymous characterization in the biblical narrative, Biblical Interpretation no. 3, 1995, 205-211. Propp, William H. Kinship in 2 Samuel 13 [problems presented to David by Tamar-Amnon incident], Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 55, 1993, 39-53. Rendsburg, Gary. A The northern origin of “the last words of David” (2 Sam 23:1-7), Biblica no. 69/1, 1988, 113-121. Rudman, Dominic. The Commissioning Stories of Saul and David as Theological Allegory, Vetus Testamentum no. 50/4, 2000, 519-530. Satterthwaite, Phillip E. The Lord’s Anointed, Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, Chapter 3: David in the Books of Samuel 1995, Tyndale House, Cambridge, 4165. Segal, Moses Hirsch. The Composition of the Books of Samuel, Jewish Quarterly Review no. 55, 1964, 318-339, and no. 56, 1965, 137-157. 58 Schulz, Alfons. Narrative Art in the Book of Samuel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series no. 116, 119-171. Schwartz, Regina M. Adultery in the house of David: the metanarrative of biblical scholarship and the narratives of the Bible, Semeia no. 54, 1991, 35-55. Schwartz, Joshua. Dogs, "Water" and Wall, Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament, no. 14/1, 2000, 101-116. Shea, William H. Chiasmus and the structure of David's lament, Journal of Biblical Literature no. 105/1, 1986, 13-25. Simon, Uriel. Poor man's ewe-lamb, Biblica no. 48/2, 1967, 207-242. Smothers, Thomas G. Historical Criticism as a Tool for Proclamation: 1Samuel 13, Review and Expositor no. 84, 1987, 23-31. Srubas, Rachel M. Midrash for Hannah, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion no. 16/1, 2000, 87-90. Stansell, Gary. Honor and Shame in the David Narratives, Semeia no. 68, 1994, 55-79. Thompson, J. A. Significance of the verb love in the David-Jonathan narratives in 1 Samuel, Vetus Testamentum no. 24, 1974, 334-338. Toorn, Karel van der, and Houtman, Cees. David and the Ark, Journal of Biblical Literature no. 113, 1994, 1994, 209-231. Tur-Sinai, N. H. The Ark of God at Beit Shemesh (1 Sam. VI) and Peresh ’Uzza (2 Sam. V; 1 Chron. XIII). Vetus Testamentum 1951, 275-286. Vanderkam James C. Davidic complicity int he death of Abner and Eshbaal: A historical and redactional study, Journal of Biblical Literature, no. 99/4, 1980, 521-539. Walters, Stanley D. Hannah and Anna: the Greek and Hebrew texts of 1 Samuel 1, Journal of Biblical Literature no. 107, 1988, 385-412, 1988. Wesselius, J. W. Joab's death and the central theme of the succession narrative (2 Samuel 9-1 Kings 2), Vetus Testamentum no. 40, 1990, 336-351. Whitelam, Keith W. The defence of David, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 29, 1984, 61-87. Willimon, William H. A Peculiarly Christian Account of Sin, Theology Today no. 50, 1993, 220-228. Willis, John T. Song of Hannah and Psalm 113, Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 35, 1973, 139-154. 59 Holtz, Barry W. On Reading Jewish Texts. In Back to the Sources, Reading the Classic Jewish Texts. Summit Books, New York, 1984. 11-127. +447. Morgan, Robert with Barton, John. Literary Study of the Bible. Chapter 7 in Biblical Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 1989, 203-268. 60 CONTENT 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 2 1.1. The Intention of this Work .......................................................................... 2 1.2. The Characters of the Books of Samuel ..................................................... 3 2. Hannah: A Mother for a Nation ........................................................ 5 2.1. The High Esteem of Motherhood ............................................................... 6 2.2. The Characteristics of the Narrative ........................................................... 7 3. Michal: Daughter of Saul or Wife of David? ................................. 10 3.1. The love of Michal .................................................................................... 10 3.2. The marriage of Michal with David .......................................................... 11 3.3. The relationship of David to Michal ......................................................... 12 3.4. The hatred of Michal ................................................................................. 14 3.5. The barrenness of Michal .......................................................................... 16 4. Bathsheba and Tamar: The Sexually Abused Women ................. 17 4.1. Bathsheba .................................................................................................. 17 4.1.1. The background of the narrative ........................................................ 18 4.1.2. The literary features of the narrative.................................................. 18 4.1.3. The innocence of Bathsheba ............................................................... 19 4.1.4. The timing of the adultery ................................................................... 21 4.1.5. The judgements declared .................................................................... 23 4.1.6. Summary .............................................................................................. 24 4.2. Tamar ......................................................................................................... 24 4.2.1. The rape and “divorce” of Tamar ...................................................... 25 4.2.2. The question of incest .......................................................................... 27 4.2.3. The question of Tamar’s innocence .................................................... 28 4.2.4. The question of bloodguilt .................................................................. 29 4.2.5. Summary .............................................................................................. 30 5. Abigail and the Tekoite Woman: Wise Women ............................ 31 5.1. Abigail, the wise wife of a churl (1Sam 25) ............................................. 31 5.1.1. Abigail in contrast with Nabal ............................................................ 31 5.1.2. Abigail’s moral superiority ................................................................. 34 5.1.3. Abigail’s marriage with David ........................................................... 35 5.2. The Tekoite wise woman: 2Sam 14:4-20 ................................................. 37 5.2.1. Literary considerations ....................................................................... 38 5.2.2. Textual considerations ........................................................................ 40 5.2.3. Hermeneutical considerations ............................................................ 42 5.2.4. Judicial considerations ....................................................................... 44 5.2.5. Social considerations .......................................................................... 48 5.2.6. Rhetorical considerations ................................................................... 49 5.2.7. Summary .............................................................................................. 50 6. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 51 Bibliography........................................................................................ 53 Books and Commentaries: ............................................................................... 53 61 Articles: ............................................................................................................ 54 62